US v. Brandon Dodd, No. 19-4558 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-4558 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRANDON JAMAINE DODD, a/k/a BJ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (6:10-cr-00423-JMC-1) Submitted: April 1, 2020 Decided: April 15, 2020 Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scarlet B. Moore, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sloan Price Ellis, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brandon Jamaine Dodd appeals from the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 18 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking Dodd’s supervised release term and erred in sentencing him. Although advised of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Dodd has not done so. We affirm. We review the district court’s revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion and the court’s factual determinations underlying the conclusion that a violation occurred for clear error. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015). Dodd admitted to the violation alleged in the petition to revoke his supervised release. We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to revoke his supervised release term. Turning to Dodd’s sentence, “[a] district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). We will affirm a revocation sentence that “is within the prescribed statutory range and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, [we] must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable where, as here, the district court adequately explains the sentence after 2 considering the Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2018) factors. United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2018). A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if the court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. “A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a postconviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.” Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 (internal quotation marks omitted). Only if a sentence is either procedurally or substantively unreasonable do we consider whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Dodd’s sentence, which is within both the statutory maximum and the policy statement range, is not plainly unreasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Dodd, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Dodd requests that a petition be filed, but counsel 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 Dodd. 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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
