United States v. Bowden , 158 F. App'x 500 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4664
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH DAVID BOWDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-99-317)
Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 28, 2005
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joseph David Bowden appeals from the district court’s
order revoking his probation and sentencing him to ten months of
imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. Bowden’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’s sentence was reasonable. Bowden has been notified
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done
so.
Bowden does not challenge the district court’s finding
that he violated the terms of his probation. The only issue Bowden
raises on appeal is whether the district court’s imposition of a
ten-month sentence upon revocation of probation was unduly harsh.
The ten-month sentence imposed by the district court is within the
statutory maximum. Furthermore, the district court considered the
advisory guidelines in Chapter 7 of the Guidelines Manual, which
based on a Grade B violation and an original criminal history
category of I, provided a sentencing range of four to ten months.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4 (2004). The court also
considered Bowden’s history and record on probation and sentenced him
within the guidelines range to ten months of imprisonment. We find
no reversible error in the imposition of the ten-month sentence.
- 2 -
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s judgment. We deny counsel’s motion to
withdraw, and note that counsel must 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 renew his motion 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 -