United States v. Caldwell ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4869
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BRADLEY LANIER CALDWELL,
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-04-188)
Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: March 6, 2006
Before WILKINSON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Robert
Michael Hamilton, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bradley Lanier Caldwell appeals from the district court’s
order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-
four months’ imprisonment. Caldwell’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.
Caldwell has been notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so.
We review the district court’s judgment revoking
supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse of
discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43
(4th Cir. 1995). The conduct upon which the revocation was based
included illegal drug use, a Grade B violation. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines § 7B1.1(a)(2) (2004). Caldwell’s criminal
history level was V. Combining these two factors, the district
court correctly determined Caldwell’s sentencing range was eighteen
to twenty-four months. See USSG § 7B1.4(a).
The sentence imposed by the district court was within
both the statutory and guideline range. Caldwell admitted to
testing positive for cocaine on eight occasions as well as other
supervised release violations. The district court gave Caldwell a
choice of sentences and he selected the twenty-four month sentence
because it included a drug treatment program. The sentence was
- 2 -
reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing it.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Caldwell’s 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, 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 -