United States v. Woody , 286 F. App'x 20 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4103
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BILLY RAY WOODY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:99-cr-00263-NCT-1)
Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 7, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B.
Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Billy Ray Woody appeals from the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twelve months
imprisonment after finding he violated the terms of his release.
Woody’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), representing that, in his view,
there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence and the reasonableness of Woody’s
sentence. Woody was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no meritorious
issues and no error by the district court, we affirm the revocation
order and the sentence imposed.
At the revocation hearing, Woody admitted to the charged
violations, but presented explanations for his conduct, asserting
that he had good reasons for driving without a valid license and
that the scheduled drug treatment programs conflicted with his work
schedule. In light of Woody’s admission to several of the charged
violations and the district court’s findings—based on the testimony
of the probation officer—that Woody violated the terms of his
supervision as charged in the revocation petition, we find no abuse
of discretion by the district court in revoking Woody’s supervised
release. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 2008); United
States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995).
- 2 -
Woody also challenges the reasonableness of the twelve-
month term of imprisonment imposed. He contends that the sentence
was greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing in
light of the fact that his conduct during this term of supervised
release was better than it was during his previous term of
supervised release. He requested that he be allowed to return to
his job and his family.
In imposing sentence, the district court agreed that
Woody had done better, but noted that he had failed to comply with
the supervised release terms. Therefore, the court found that
revocation and a twelve-month sentence were appropriate. This
sentence was within the eight-to-fourteen-month advisory guideline
range and within the twelve-month maximum allowed by statute, and
is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449,
455-56 (4th Cir. 2006); 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3); U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a), p.s.
In accordance with Anders, we have independently reviewed
the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order revoking Woody’s
supervised release and imposing a twelve-month sentence. 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,
- 3 -
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 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
- 4 -