United States v. Bennett , 290 F. App'x 602 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4325
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERMAINE OTTIS BENNETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:00-cr-00319-WO-1)
Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Ottis Bennett appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty
months’ imprisonment followed by a sixteen-month term of supervised
release. 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 review but questioning the reasonableness
of the sentence imposed. Bennett was advised of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. After a thorough
review of the record, we affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed following revocation of
supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory limits
and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1813(2007); see also United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d 288, 294 (4th
Cir. 2008). Bennett’s sentence is below the statutorily authorized
maximum sentence of two years, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000),
and falls below the advisory guideline range of twenty-four to
thirty months’ imprisonment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§§ 7B1.4(a)(p.s.), 7B1.4(b)(3)(A) (2007). Finally, the district
court adequately considered the applicable 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2008) factors when imposing sentence. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e). We conclude that the sentence is not plainly
unreasonable.
2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we
affirm the revocation of Bennett’s supervised release and his
sentence. This court requires counsel to inform Bennett in writing
of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. Accordingly, we also deny counsel’s motion to
withdraw as counsel. If Bennett requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may renew his motion for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Bennett. 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