United States v. McLean , 53 F. App'x 288 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                               No. 02-4448
    JAMES MARSHALL MCLEAN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.
    (CR-96-6)
    Submitted: December 16, 2002
    Decided: December 23, 2002
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Paul A.
    Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Caro-
    lina, for Appellee.
    2                      UNITED STATES v. MCLEAN
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    James Marshall McLean appeals the district court’s judgment
    revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-
    four months in prison. McLean’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant
    to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744 (1967), stating that he is
    not aware of any meritorious issues for appeal, but asserting the dis-
    trict court erred by imposing a twenty-four month sentence. Finding
    no error, we affirm.
    This court reviews the district court’s decision to revoke a defen-
    dant’s supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v.
    Copley, 
    978 F.2d 829
    , 831 (4th Cir. 1992). The district court need
    only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a prepon-
    derance of the evidence. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3) (2000). Upon finding
    a violation of the terms of supervised release, the district court may
    resentence the defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of
    supervised released authorized by the statute for the offense or con-
    viction. 
    Id.
     Where as here, the original offense of conviction was a
    class C felony, the defendant may not be required to serve more than
    two years in prison. 
    Id.
    The uncontroverted evidence established that McLean violated sev-
    eral conditions of his probation. In fact, McLean admitted to all of the
    violations listed in the Government’s motion to revoke his term of
    supervised release. Because the district court imposed a sentence that
    did not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment authorized by the
    statute, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
    McLean to twenty-four months of imprisonment.
    As required by Anders, we have reviewed the record and conclude
    that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that
    counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
    UNITED STATES v. MCLEAN                         3
    Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client
    requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a peti-
    tion would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave
    to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a
    copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argu-
    ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
    in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
    sional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-4448

Citation Numbers: 53 F. App'x 288

Judges: Luttig, Michael, Motz, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/23/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024