United States v. Toboris Buie, 713 F. App'x 188

Appellant Toboris Tanton Buie appealed revocation of supervised release and a 20-month prison term imposed by the district court.
Counsel filed an Anders brief stating no meritorious issues but questioned whether the sentence was plainly unreasonable; the Government did not file a brief.
Buie filed a pro se supplemental brief raising two issues (not found meritorious by the court).
The district court relied on Buie’s continued pattern of criminal conduct and the need for deterrence and public protection when imposing the 20-month sentence and terminating supervision.
Fourth Circuit reviewed for plain unreasonableness under the standard for supervised release revocation sentences and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 20‑month revocation sentence was plainly unreasonable	Buie argued the sentence was excessive/unreasonable	Government declined to brief; district court argued sentence fit given conduct and §3553(a) factors	Affirmed — sentence not plainly unreasonable; court gave permissible reasons (deterrence, protection)
Whether district court failed to follow required sentencing considerations for revocation	Buie suggested procedural errors in weighing relevant factors	District court considered Chapter 7 policy statements and applicable §3553(a) factors	Rejected — court adequately considered advisory Guidelines and §3553(a) factors

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (standard for review of supervised release revocation sentences and plain‑unreasonableness framework)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to withdraw when appeal lacks merit)