United States v. Sutton , 218 F. App'x 259 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4838
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAWN DEMPSY SUTTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (2:90-cr-00218-NCT)
Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 20, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael W. Patrick, Chapel Hill, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dawn D. Sutton appeals from the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twelve months
imprisonment after he admitted to violations of his supervised
release terms. Sutton’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
questioning whether the supervised release term in Sutton’s
original sentence was erroneous. Sutton was informed of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Finding no meritorious issues and no error by the district court,
we affirm the revocation order and the sentence imposed.
In light of Sutton’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 Supp. 2006). Sutton was sentenced to the statutory maximum,
which also correlated to the sentence suggested by the sentencing
guidelines. Before imposing sentence, the court noted Sutton’s
continued non-compliance with his supervised release terms and the
fact that his supervised release had already been revoked twice
before. We conclude that Sutton’s twelve-month sentence was not
plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,
439-40 (4th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed (Nov. 3, 2006)
(No. 06-7631). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to examine Sutton’s
- 2 -
original sentence. See United States v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115,
117-18 (4th Cir. 1998).
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 Sutton’s
supervised release and imposing a twelve-month 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 -