Cecil Edward Jackson appealed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, which had revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to time-served imprisonment followed by one year of supervised release. Jackson's counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the revocation decision and the reasonableness of the sentence. The Government did not file a response, and Jackson did not file a pro se supplemental brief despite being informed of his right to do so. The appeal challenged the district court's finding that Jackson violated the terms of his supervised release and the subsequent sentencing determination.
The court applied clear error review to the district court's factual findings and an abuse of discretion standard to the ultimate decision to revoke supervised release. The court noted that a court may revoke supervised release if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of release. In this case, the record showed that Jackson knowingly and voluntarily admitted to violating the terms of his supervised release, meaning the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking it. Regarding the sentence, the court reiterated that district courts have broad discretion when imposing sentences upon revocation. The appellate court affirmed a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable. The review process requires determining whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the court adequately explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines' nonbinding Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. A sentence is substantively reasonable if, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the court states an appropriate basis for the sentence. The district court correctly calculated a policy statement range of 5 to 11 months' imprisonment and engaged the parties in a discussion of the violation circumstances. The court emphasized Jackson's persistent issues with anger and stalking, his lengthy history of incarceration, and the need for conscientious personal contact. Although the explanation was brief, it was sufficient given the discussions during the hearing and the imposition of an agreed-upon sentence. Because the sentence fell within the recommended policy statement range, it was presumptively reasonable, and Jackson offered no factors to rebut this presumption.
The judgment is affirmed without further proceedings or modification. Jackson's supervised release has been revoked, and he has been sentenced to time-served followed by one year of supervision. The decision reinforces that voluntary admissions to violations can support revocation and that sentences within the recommended policy statement range are presumptively reasonable. No further appellate review is available unless a petition for certiorari is filed with the Supreme Court, though counsel may move to withdraw if such a petition is deemed frivolous.