United States of America v. James Bernard Powell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-4300
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES BERNARD POWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
David C. Norton, District Judge. (9:17-cr-01173-DCN-1)
Submitted: September 12, 2025 Decided: October 3, 2025
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Emily Deck Harrill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Janet Carra
Henderson, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
James Bernard Powell appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised
release and imposing a prison sentence of 12 months and a day. Powell’s counsel has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the procedural reasonableness of Powell’s
sentence. Although notified of his right to do so, Powell has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief. The Government has declined to file a response. We affirm.
“A district court has broad . . . discretion in fashioning a sentence upon revocation
of a defendant’s term of supervised release.” United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 206
(4th Cir. 2017). “[W]e will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory
maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Cohen, 63 F.4th 250, 258 (4th
Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, the sentence does not
exceed the statutory maximum, “we first examine whether the sentence was unreasonable
at all, procedurally or substantively.” United States v. Amin, 85 F.4th 727, 739 (4th Cir.
2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Only if we find the sentence unreasonable must
we decide whether it is plainly so.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court’s sentence is procedurally reasonable, as the
court correctly calculated the policy statement range, allowed the parties to advocate for
an appropriate sentence, and gave Powell an opportunity to address the court. In addition,
we find that the court’s sentencing explanation, “though brief, was legally sufficient.” Rita
v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). We therefore discern no procedural error in
the imposition of Powell’s revocation sentence.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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
revocation judgment. However, we remand with instructions to amend the written
judgment to reflect that Powell admitted Violations 35, 37, 38, 39, and 40, and that Powell
was found to have committed Violation 36.*
This court requires that counsel inform Powell, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Powell 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 Powell.
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 AND REMANDED
* Presently, the written judgment indicates that Powell admitted all 41 alleged
violations. However, the Government declined to pursue Violations 1 through 34, and the
district court did not rule on Violation 41.

-- 3 of 3 --