United States of America v. Marion Dajuan Feaster

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4503
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARION DAJUAN FEASTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:14-cr-00032-WO-1)
Submitted: May 19, 2022 Decided: May 23, 2022
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY PC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Marion Dajuan Feaster appeals his 18-month sentence imposed upon the revocation
of his term of supervised release. On appeal, Feaster’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but pointing our attention to the reasonableness of Feaster’s sentence.
Feaster was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
“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 if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly
unreasonable.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal
quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a revocation sentence is plainly
unreasonable, we must first determine whether the sentence is procedurally or
substantively unreasonable. Id. In making this determination, we are guided by “the same
procedural and substantive considerations that guide our review of original sentences,” but
we take “a more deferential appellate posture than we do when reviewing original
sentences.” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). We
have reviewed Feaster’s revocation sentence and conclude that it is not plainly
unreasonable. The court accurately calculated Feaster’s policy statement range and
explained its reasons for imposing an 18-month sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Feaster, in writing, of the right to petition the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Feaster 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 Feaster.
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 of 3 --