United States v. Johnson ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4267
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JASON SHERRARD JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00085-4)
Submitted: January 25, 2007 Decided: January 29, 2007
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul J. Peralta, Moore & VanAllen, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Jonathan A. Vogel, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jason Sherrard Johnson appeals the district court’s
revocation of his supervised release and his resulting twenty-four
month sentence. Johnson’s attorney filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967), certifying that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning
whether the district court erred in revoking his supervised release
and imposing an unreasonable sentence that did not take into
account the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Government did not
file a responding brief, and although advised of his right to do
so, Johnson did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
Johnson was convicted of a new crime during his
supervised release which amounted to a Grade B violation under USSG
§ 7B1.1. Section 7B1.3(a)(1) mandates that the court “shall”
revoke supervised release upon finding a Grade B violation.
Because Johnson was convicted of a new crime and admitted to three
other release violations, the court did not err in revoking his
supervised release.
We recently held in United States v. Crudup, __ F.3d __,
2006 WL 224386 (4th Cir. Aug. 7, 2006), that we review sentences
imposed upon the revocation of supervised release to determine
whether the sentence is “plainly unreasonable.” Johnson’s sentence
was within the guidelines sentencing range of 18-24 months and the
- 2 -
court stated a proper basis for its conclusion that Johnson be
sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment. See Crudup, 2006 WL
2243586, at *5. Johnson’s recidivism had been fully presented to
the court and was implicit in the court’s ruling. See United
States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995). Because
Johnson’s sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively
unreasonable, we find that his sentence is not plainly
unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Johnson’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Johnson, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Johnson 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 thereof was served on Johnson.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
determination. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials
before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -