United States v. Vanmeter ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4372
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BRYAN A. VANMETER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CR-96-4)
Submitted: August 26, 2005 Decided: September 12, 2005
Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Sherry Muncy, Assistant United States
Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bryan A. Vanmeter appeals a district court judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 10 months’
imprisonment. On appeal, Vanmeter’s attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming
there are no meritorious issues on appeal, but raising the question
of whether the district court erred in using a certified copy of a
sentencing order to establish Vanmeter violated a condition of
supervised release by committing another crime. Counsel also
raises the issue as to whether the sentence was in error. Vanmeter
did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no error, we
affirm.
We review the district court’s decision to revoke a
defendant’s supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). The district
court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised
release by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Factual determinations are
reviewed for clear error. United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d
1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003). We find the certified copy of the
sentence order was more than sufficient to support the court’s
decision to revoke supervised release.
- 2 -
With respect to Vanmeter’s sentence, it did not exceed
the statutory maximum and was plainly reasonable. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742(a)(4) (2000).
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Vanmeter’s judgment. This court requires 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 a
petition be filed, but counsel believes 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 -