Taron Leon Shuler appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after revocation of his supervised release. He argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively infirm because he did not willfully fail to pay restitution. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Shulers sentence.
“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, 957 F.3d 426, 436 (4th Cir. 2020). We “must first determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.” Id. Only when the sentence is unreasonable will we “determine whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 437.
“A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately explains the chosen sentence after considering the Chapter Seven policy statement range and the applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) sentencing factors.” Id. at 436; see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing relevant factors). “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.” United States v. Coston, 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, No. 20-6513, ––– U.S. ––––, ––– S.Ct. ––––, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2021 WL 161125 (U.S. Jan. 19, 2021). “A sentence within the policy statement range is presumed reasonable.” United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
With these standards in mind, our review leads us to conclude that the district court did not err in concluding that Shulers failure to make restitution payments was willful. Moreover, Shulers sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable and, therefore, not plainly unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment revoking supervised release. 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
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.