United States v. Flippen ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5072
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KHALIEK FLIPPEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-04-492)
Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela
Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Khaliek Flippen appeals from the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to eight months’
imprisonment after he admitted to violations of his supervised
release. Flippen’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 raising
the issue of whether the district court erred in imposing Flippen’s
sentence. Although he was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, Flippen has not filed a brief. Finding no
meritorious issues and no error by the district court, we affirm
the revocation order and the sentence imposed.
In light of Flippen’s admission that he violated the
terms of his supervision, we find no error by the district court in
revoking his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2005); United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638,
642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). Flippen challenges the length of the
sentence and supervised release term. The eight-month term of
incarceration imposed by the district court was within the five-to-
eleven-month advisory guideline range and was reasonable. See
United States v. Green, F.3d , , 2006 WL 267217, at *5 (4th
Cir. Jan. 6, 2006) (No. 05-4270); 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West
2000 & Supp. 2005); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a).
The forty-two month term of supervised release imposed following
- 2 -
the eight-month revocation sentence was within the statutory
maximum and was not “plainly unreasonable.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(b),
(h); 3742(a)(4) (2000).
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
Flippen’s supervised release and imposing an eight-month sentence
and a forty-two-month supervised release term. 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 -