
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan JARAMILLO-JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-4872.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 28, 2014.
    Decided: May 13, 2014.
    Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Juan Jaramillo-Jiraenez appeals the district court’s judgment and commitment order entered after his supervised release was revoked. The court sentenced Jaram-illo-Jimenez to serve eighteen months’ imprisonment consecutive to the sentence he was serving at the time. He contends that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.

The district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release. United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir.2013). We will affirm the sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not “plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir.2006). We first consider whether the sentence is proeedurally or substantively unreasonable. Webb, 738 F.3d at 640. A revocation sentence is proeedurally reasonable if the district court considered the advisory policy statement range and the § 3553(a) factors applicable to supervised release revocation. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40. A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court stated a proper basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. Id. at 440. Only if a sentence is found proeedurally or substantively unreasonable will we then decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Id. at 439.

In ordering the sentence at issue, the district court properly considered Jaramil-lo-Jimenez unwillingness to abide by the terms of supervision, see United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 655 (4th Cir.2007), and the need to deter further violations of supervised release. See Webb, 738 F.3d at 642. Because the court stated a proper basis for the consecutive eighteen month sentence, we find no error.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and commitment 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.  