`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`No. 24-4490
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGARIUS DESHAWN BONNER,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff - Appellee,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant - Appellant.
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
`Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00304-TDS-1)
`
`
`
`
`Submitted: February 20, 2025
`
`
`Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
`
`
`
`Decided: February 25, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BRIEF: John D. Bryson, WYATT, EARLY, HARRIS & WHEELER, LLP, High
`Point, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall S. Galyon, Acting United States Attorney,
`Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
`ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`Legarius Deshawn Bonner pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, in
`
`violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In 2019, the district court sentenced Bonner to 37
`
`months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. In 2024, the district
`
`court revoked Bonner’s supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment.
`
`On appeal, Bonner argues that the upward-variant revocation sentence is plainly
`
`unreasonable. We affirm.
`
`“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of
`
`supervised release. [We] will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory
`
`maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 436
`
`(4th Cir. 2020). Before deciding “whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable,
`
`[we] must first determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively
`
`unreasonable,” id., applying “the same procedural and substantive considerations that
`
`guide our review of original sentences” but taking “a more deferential appellate posture
`
`than we do when reviewing original sentences,” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370,
`
`373 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). “[I]f a sentence is
`
`either procedurally or substantively unreasonable,” we then address “whether the sentence
`
`is plainly unreasonable—that is, whether the unreasonableness is clear or obvious.”
`
`Patterson, 957 F.3d at 437 (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`“A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately
`
`explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding
`
`Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted); see
`
`18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing applicable factors). “[A]lthough the court need not be as
`
`detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a
`
`post-conviction sentence, it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence
`
`imposed.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation
`
`marks and ellipsis omitted). The district court must, at a minimum, explain the sentence
`
`sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review, “with the assurance that the court
`
`considered any potentially meritorious arguments raised by [the defendant] with regard to
`
`his sentencing.” United States v. Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199, 205 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal
`
`quotation marks, emphasis, and brackets omitted). And where, as here, a court imposes a
`
`sentence above the policy statement range, the court must explain why that sentence “better
`
`serves the relevant sentencing [factors].” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 209 (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). “A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if, in light of the totality of
`
`the circumstances, the court states an appropriate basis for concluding that the defendant
`
`should receive the sentence imposed.” Coston, 964 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted).
`
`Here, the district court sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the upward-
`
`variant, statutory maximum 24-month revocation sentence. The court considered the
`
`relevant statutory factors, imposed a sentence within the statutory maximum, gave
`
`sufficiently detailed reasons for its decision, and addressed Bonner’s arguments for a lower
`
`sentence. We discern no error in the court’s consideration of the relevant sentencing
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`factors. Accordingly, we conclude that the 24-month sentence is reasonable. We therefore
`
`affirm the revocation judgment.
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
