United States v. Shadarryl Turner, 671 F. App'x 41

Appellant Shadarryl Turner appealed the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and a 24‑month prison sentence.
The appeal challenges the reasonableness of the revocation sentence.
The district court calculated the Chapter Seven policy‑statement range, heard counsel’s arguments, and considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
The court provided an explanation for the chosen sentence; its comments included a passing reference to promoting respect for the law.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed whether the sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable and whether it was plainly unreasonable.
The Fourth Circuit concluded the district court committed no procedural or substantive error and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 24‑month revocation sentence was procedurally unreasonable	Turner argued the sentence was unreasonable (implying procedural flaws in sentencing)	Government argued the court followed Chapter Seven, considered § 3553(a), and adequately explained the sentence	Court held sentence was not procedurally unreasonable; proper considerations made and adequate explanation given
Whether the 24‑month revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable	Turner argued the sentence was greater than necessary	Government argued the sentence fell within statutory discretion and matched sentencing goals	Court held sentence was substantively reasonable; within court’s broad discretion
Whether the sentence was plainly unreasonable on appellate review	Turner urged that, viewed as a whole, the sentence was plainly unreasonable	Government maintained any reference to promoting respect for the law did not render the sentence plainly unreasonable	Court held the passing remark did not make the sentence plainly unreasonable; affirmed
Whether the district court adequately applied Chapters Seven and § 3553(a) factors	Turner contended inadequate consideration/explanation	Government showed the record reflected those considerations and counsels’ arguments were addressed	Court held the district court properly calculated the policy range and considered applicable factors

United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370 (4th Cir.) (standards for reviewing revocation sentences)
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (substantive‑reasonableness framework for revocation sentences)
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2010) (requirements for district court’s statement of reasons on revocation)
United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 2013) (discussion of § 3553(a) factors and revocation sentencing)