USCA4 Appeal: 24-4143 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4143

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID R. KITCHEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:15-cr-00047-RBS-LRL-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 22, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Peter L. Goldman, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Kristin G. Bird, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, Vetan Kapoor, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4143 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

David R. Kitchen appeals the six-month term of home confinement imposed

following the revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Kitchen asserts that the

district court abused its discretion when it imposed the term of home confinement because

he had otherwise adjusted to the terms of his supervised release. 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,

(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,

(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: 24-4143 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

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) (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). “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).

We have reviewed the record in conjunction with the parties’ arguments and

conclude that the imposed revocation sentence is reasonable and, thus, not plainly

unreasonable. Notably, the record confirms that the district court explained its reasons for

the sentence in detail and, moreover, that the court was measured in its reasoning, seeking

to balance the escalation in Kitchen’s defiance with his nearly 11 months of positive

behavior. We conclude that the district court sufficiently stated a proper basis for its

conclusion that Kitchen should receive the sentence imposed. See Slappy,

-

08.

Accordingly, we affirm the revocation order. 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