United States v. Ronald Johnson , 594 F. App'x 213 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4634
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RONALD SHANE JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:13-cr-00152-RBH-1)
Submitted: February 19, 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day, II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
After finding that Ronald Shane Johnson had violated
the terms of his supervised release, the district court revoked
release and imposed an eight-month term of imprisonment.
Johnson now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
raising two issues but concluding that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal. Johnson was advised of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief but did not file such a brief. We
affirm.
Johnson admitted committing four of the five charged
release violations and did not contest the fifth. Accordingly,
we conclude that the court did not clearly err when it found
that he had violated the conditions of release. See United
States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (4th Cir. 2009). Nor did
the court abuse its discretion in deciding to revoke release.
See United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999).
Johnson’s sentence falls below the statutory maximum
of two years and within the policy statement range of
five-twelve months. Further, the district court took the
statutory sentencing factors into consideration when determining
the sentence. Finally, the court provided sound grounds for
selecting the sentence. We conclude that the sentence is not
2
plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel
inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may then move
in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3