US v. Anthony Cameron

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:95-cr-00266-JAB-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999566480].. [14-4806]

Appeal: 14-4806

Doc: 20

Filed: 04/17/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4806

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY WAYNE CAMERON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:95-cr-00266-JAB-2)

Submitted:

April 13, 2015

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

April 17, 2015

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen F. Wallace, WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY,
Greensboro,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4806

Doc: 20

Filed: 04/17/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Anthony Wayne Cameron appeals his sentence of 51 months’
imprisonment imposed by the district court upon revocation of
his supervised release.

On appeal, Cameron’s counsel has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
raising as a potential issue whether the district court properly
sentenced Cameron.

Although notified of his right to do so,

Cameron has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
“A

district

court

has

broad

discretion

We affirm.

when

sentence upon revocation of supervised release.”
v.

Webb,

738

F.3d

638,

sentence

that

“is

‘plainly

unreasonable’”

640

within

(4th

the

will

Cir.

be

A

maximum

affirmed

on

a

United States

2013).

statutory

imposing

revocation

and

is

appeal.

not
Id.

(quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir.
2006)).

In

so

reasonableness,

utilizing

considerations”
sentence.
A

evaluating

employed

a

sentence,

“the
in

we

procedural

evaluating

an

assess
and

it

for

substantive

original

criminal

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438.

revocation

sentence

is

procedurally

reasonable

if

the

district court has considered the policy statements contained in
Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)
(2012).

(2012)

factors

enumerated

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439.
2

in

18

U.S.C.

§ 3583(e)

The district court also must

Appeal: 14-4806

Doc: 20

provide

an

Filed: 04/17/2015

explanation

for

Pg: 3 of 4

its

chosen

sentence,

but

the

explanation “need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a
revocation

sentence

as

it

must

be

when

imposing

a

post-

conviction sentence.”

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544,

547 (4th Cir. 2010).

A revocation sentence is substantively

reasonable

if

concluding

that

imposed.
to

be

the

district

the

court

defendant

states

should

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
procedurally

or

a

proper

receive

basis

the

for

sentence

Only if we find a sentence

substantively

unreasonable

determine whether the sentence is “plainly” so.

will

we

Id. at 439.

Here, the district court properly considered the arguments
from

counsel,

allocution

from

Cameron,

the

statutory

maximum

sentences upon revocation, and the § 3553(a) factors enumerated
in

§ 3583(e)

before

sentencing

policy statement range.
for

its

sentence

was

Cameron

at

the

bottom

of

the

While the district court’s explanation
not

lengthy,

it

provided

a

sentence

tailored to Cameron, focusing specifically on the nature and
circumstances
therefore

of

his

conclude

violations
that

of

Cameron’s

supervised
sentence

release.
is

We

neither

procedurally nor substantively unreasonable and, therefore, is
not plainly so.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.
therefore

affirm

the

district
3

court’s

judgment

We

revoking

Appeal: 14-4806

Doc: 20

Filed: 04/17/2015

supervised release.

Pg: 4 of 4

This court requires that counsel inform

Cameron, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review.
that

a

petition

be

filed,

but

counsel

If Cameron requests
believes

that

such

a

petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
for leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion

must state that a copy thereof was served on Cameron.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4