USCA4 Appeal: 24-4042 Doc: 30 Filed: 11/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4042

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DYLAN JOSEPH EDWARD MESCALL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00517-WO-2)

Submitted: November 14, 2024 Decided: November 18, 2024

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Seth A. Neyhart, LAW OFFICE OF SETH A. NEYHART, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4042 Doc: 30 Filed: 11/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Dylan Joseph Edward Mescall appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his

supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months’ imprisonment, followed by 24 months

of supervised release. On appeal, Mescall 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. [We] will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory

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

(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) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). “[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,

(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,

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

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

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4042 Doc: 30 Filed: 11/18/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

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

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

imposed.” United States v. Slappy,

(4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation

marks and ellipsis omitted). 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) (internal

quotation marks, emphasis, and brackets omitted). 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,

(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 court correctly

calculated the applicable policy statement range of 4-10 months, considered the relevant

statutory factors, imposed a sentence within the statutory maximum, gave sufficiently

detailed reasons for its decision, and addressed Mescall’s arguments for a lower sentence.

We discern no error in the court’s consideration of the relevant sentencing factors.

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

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4042 Doc: 30 Filed: 11/18/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4