United States of America v. Dwight Leon Gill, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DWIGHT LEON GILL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00196-TDS-1)
Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: September 26, 2022
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Michael A. DeFranco, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Dwight Leon Gill, Jr., appeals from the district court judgment revoking his
supervised release and sentencing him to 24 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 imposed a plainly
unreasonable sentence. Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
Gill has not done so. We affirm.
“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.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “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). In
making this determination, we are guided by “the same procedural and substantive
considerations that guide our review of original sentences.” United States v. Padgett, 788
F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (brackets and 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
States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (footnotes omitted). “[A] revocation
sentence is substantively reasonable if the court sufficiently states a proper basis for its
conclusion that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.” Id. (cleaned up). Our

-- 2 of 3 --

3
review of the record leads us to conclude that Gill’s 24-month sentence is within both the
statutory maximum and the policy statement range and is not unreasonable, plainly or
otherwise.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and
found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the revocation judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform Gill, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If Gill 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 Gill. 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 --