USCA4 Appeal: 24-4002 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREGORY K. PARR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:21-cr-00027-GMG-RWT-1)

Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: August 30, 2024

Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. William Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Kimberley D. Crockett, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4002 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Gregory K. Parr appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation

of his supervised release. On appeal, Parr argues that the upward-variant revocation

sentence is plainly unreasonable. We affirm.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of

supervised release. This [c]ourt will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory

maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Patterson,

, 436

(4th Cir. 2020). Before deciding “whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable,

[we] must first determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively

unreasonable,”

applying “the same procedural and substantive considerations that

guide our review of original sentences” but taking “a more deferential appellate posture

than we do when reviewing original sentences,” United States v. Padgett,

(4th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). “[I]f a sentence is either procedurally or substantively

unreasonable,” we then address “whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable—that is,

whether the unreasonableness is clear or obvious.” Patterson, 957 F.3d at 437 (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

(a) factors.” United

States v. Coston,

, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted); see

(e) (listing applicable factors). “[A]lthough the court need not be as

detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be when imposing a

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4002 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

post-conviction sentence, it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence

imposed.” United States v. Slappy,

(4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). The

district court must, at a minimum, explain the sentence sufficiently to permit meaningful

appellate review, “with the assurance that the court considered any potentially meritorious

arguments raised by [the defendant] with regard to his sentencing.” United States v. Gibbs,

(4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). And where, as here, a court imposes a

sentence above the policy statement range, the court must explain why that sentence “better

serves the relevant sentencing [factors].” Slappy,

(internal quotation marks

omitted). “A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if, in 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).

In this case, the district court sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the

upward-variant, statutory maximum 24-month revocation sentence. The district court

plainly indicated that it believed Parr had repeatedly lied to probation, including regarding

his need for medical treatment, to avoid mandatory drug screening. The district court

highlighted that Parr was dishonest, unaccountable, and uncooperative, and in doing so

implicitly rejected Parr’s argument that his time in jail had shown him the importance of

communicating with probation. And the district court’s emphasis on its heightened

concern regarding Parr having stalked a food service worker showed it found Parr’s

mitigating arguments were outweighed by a substantial need to promote deterrence and

protect the public. This explanation adequately shows the district court considered Parr’s

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4002 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

arguments in mitigation and establishes an adequate basis for the chosen sentence.

Accordingly, we conclude that the 24-month sentence is reasonable.

We therefore affirm the revocation judgment. 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