United States of America v. Tanarius Royal

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4313
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TANARIUS ROYAL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-4314
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TANARIUS ROYAL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00508-FL-1; 5:16-cr-00103-FL-1)
Submitted: May 20, 2022 Decided: June 8, 2022

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief
Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In No. 21-2314, Tanarius Royal appeals the 18-month sentence imposed upon the
revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Royal argues that the revocation sentence
is substantively unreasonable because the district court should have imposed the sentences
to be served concurrently with one another.*
“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). Thus,
“[w]e affirm a revocation sentence so long as it is within the prescribed statutory range and
is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 296 (4th Cir. 2020)
(internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1252 (2021). Royal’s sentence
does not exceed the applicable statutory maximum. Accordingly, the remaining question
is whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. When reviewing whether a revocation
sentence is plainly unreasonable, we first “determine whether the sentence is unreasonable
at all.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “In making this determination, we follow
generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we employ in our review of
original sentences, with some necessary modifications to take into account the unique
nature of supervised release revocation sentences.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202,
207 (4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). “A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if, in
* In No. 21-4313, Royal appeals the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty
plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g),
924. However, he acknowledges that his plea agreement waived the right to challenge his
conviction and sentence on that offense, and he has not contested the plea, the conviction,
or the sentence in this appeal.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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 considered the appropriate statutory factors and Royal’s
mitigation arguments, gave sufficiently detailed reasons for selecting its within-policy-
statement range sentence, and explicitly tempered its chosen sentence in light of Royal’s
argument regarding his prior sentence. Accordingly, we conclude that Royal’s sentence is
substantively reasonable.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgments. 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 of 4 --