United States v. Johnny Burris, Jr. , 458 F. App'x 265 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-4727
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    JOHNNY BOYD BURRIS, JR., a/k/a Rahiymu El Bey,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (0:03-cr-00551-CMC-1)
    Submitted:   December 15, 2011            Decided:   December 19, 2011
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
    South Carolina, for Appellant. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Johnny Boyd Burris, Jr., was convicted of violating
    the terms of his supervised release and was sentenced to eleven
    months in prison.        On appeal, his attorney has filed a brief
    pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), stating
    that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
    whether the evidence supported a finding that Burris violated
    the terms of his release and whether the sentence is plainly
    unreasonable.       Although informed of his right to do so, Burris
    has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.               We affirm.
    Burris initially contends that his supervised release
    was improperly revoked.            We review a district court’s decision
    to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion.                        United
    States v. Copley, 
    978 F.2d 829
    , 831 (4th Cir 1992).                      To revoke
    release, the district court need only find a violation of a
    condition   of     release   by    a    preponderance    of    the    evidence.   
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3583
    (e)(3) (West Supp. 2011).                At Burris’s revocation
    hearing, it was undisputed that Burris failed to report even
    once to his probation officer.                Burris asserted that he was not
    subject   to   supervision        because     the   Government   had    failed    to
    respond   to   a   document   he       allegedly    served    under    the   Uniform
    Commercial Code (“UCC”).               Because the UCC is inapplicable in
    criminal cases and because Burris’s assertions that he was not
    subject to supervision were without support, we conclude that
    2
    the   court    did    not       abuse   its    discretion         in    revoking        Burris’s
    supervised release.
    Burris also contends that his eleven-month sentence is
    unreasonable.             A    sentence       imposed      following          revocation        of
    supervised      release         will    be    affirmed       if        it   is    within       the
    applicable statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.
    United States v. Crudup, 
    461 F.3d 433
    , 439-40 (4th Cir 2006).
    Burris’s sentence is below the statutory maximum of two years.
    See 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3583
    (e)(3) (Class C felony).                                   Further, the
    sentence      is     procedurally            reasonable:          the       district       court
    considered     both       the    Chapter      7    policy    statements           and    the    
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3553
    (a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011) factors that it was
    permitted to consider.                See Crudup, 
    461 F.3d at 440
    .                  Moreover,
    we conclude that the district court reasonably rejected Burris’s
    arguments     for     a       lower    sentence      in    light       of   Burris’s       total
    disregard     of     his      responsibilities           during    supervised           release.
    Accordingly, the sentence is also substantively reasonable, as
    the   court    adequately         explained        its    reasons       for      imposing      the
    sentence.     See 
    id.
    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
    3
    client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
    that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
    in   this   court   for      leave   to       withdraw      from   representation.
    Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
    on his 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
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-4727

Citation Numbers: 458 F. App'x 265

Judges: Gregory, Shedd, Davis

Filed Date: 12/19/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024