United States v. Brite ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4772
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STEVEN MAURICE BRITE, a/k/a Travis Louis
Thompson, a/k/a Terrance Melvin Felton,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CR-99-127)
Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: March 14, 2006
Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jennifer T. Stanton, J.T. STANTON, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States
Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Steven Maurice Brite appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four
months’ imprisonment. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no non-
frivolous grounds for appeal, but suggesting that the district
court erred when it sentenced Brite to the full term of twenty-
four-months’ imprisonment for his supervised release violation.
Brite was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, and was granted an extension in which to make such filing,
but he has not done so.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Brite is
not entitled to relief for several reasons. First, the sentencing
guidelines range calculated under U.S.Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 7B1.4(a) (2004) (calculating the guideline range for Brite’s
supervised release violation) is purely advisory. See United
States v. Denard, 24 F.3d 599, 602 (4th Cir. 1994). Second, the
twenty-four month sentence imposed by the district court is also
within the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); Johnson
v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 712 (2000) (stating “Section
3583(e)(3) limits the possible prison term to the duration of the
term of supervised release originally imposed”). Finally, the
court stated an appropriate factual basis for sentencing Brite to
the high end of the advisory guidelines range. Brite continued to
- 2 -
violate terms of his supervised release, including drug usage,
repeated failure to pay child support, failure to file required
reports with his probation officer, and failure to otherwise comply
with instructions of his probation officer. We therefore find that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a
twenty-four-month sentence. We therefore affirm the judgment of
the district court. We deny counsel leave to withdraw at this
time. We also deny Brite’s pro se motion for substitute counsel.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. 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, 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
- 3 -