The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4280
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SCOTT BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (4:11-cr-00127-FL-1)
Submitted: October 5, 2012 Decided: November 2, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Scott Brown appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty
months of imprisonment. On appeal, Brown alleges his twenty-
month sentence was plainly unreasonable. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
Three days into his supervised release, Brown was
charged with statutory rape in North Carolina. Thereafter, he
was convicted of state charges for indecent liberties with a
minor. Brown was evaluated by a licensed sex offender
therapist, who recommended that he participate in a sex offender
treatment program for a period of six months. Brown’s probation
officer directed him to do so as part of his modified terms of
release. Brown, however, failed to attend the sessions as
required, in violation of his terms of supervised release.
Thus, Brown’s probation officer filed a motion for revocation of
his supervised release for this violation and for two other
violations (failure to visit the probation office and failure to
submit truthful and complete reports for three months in a row).
At his revocation hearing, Brown admitted the
violations and the district court sentenced him to twenty months
of imprisonment, departing above his advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range of 8-14 months of imprisonment. The court
imposed sentence after hearing from both parties and Brown
2
himself, and specifically considering Chapter 7 of the
Sentencing Guidelines and relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011)
(listing § 3553(a) factors that may be considered for revocation
of supervised release). We find that the district court
adequately explained its reasons for imposing the sentence,
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009), and
that the sentence was not otherwise plainly unreasonable.
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2010)
(providing review standard).
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3