United States v. Monahan , 281 F. App'x 211 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4196
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM ROBERT MONAHAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00452-JAB-1)
Submitted: May 20, 2008 Decided: June 16, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Graham Tod
Green, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Robert Monahan’s supervised release was revoked,
and he was sentenced to twenty-one months in prison for violating
certain conditions of release. His attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that
there are no meritorious issues for review but suggesting that the
court may have abused its discretion in revoking release and
imposing the sentence. Monahan was advised of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. After a
thorough review of the record, we affirm.
A decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d
638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). Here, Monahan admitted to violating
release conditions as charged. Given the nature of the violations,
the district court was statutorily obligated to revoke release.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(g)(1), (g)(4) (2000). We conclude that the
decision to revoke Monahan’s supervision was not an abuse of
discretion.
We will affirm a sentence imposed following revocation of
supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory limits
and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1813(2007). Monahan’s sentence is below the statutorily authorized
maximum of two years, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000), and falls
-2-
within the advisory guideline range of 21-24 months. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 7B1.4(a) (p.s.), 7B1.4(b)(3)(A)
(2005). Finally, the district court adequately considered the
applicable 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008) factors
when imposing sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). We conclude that
the sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we
affirm the revocation of Monahan’s supervised release and his
sentence of twenty-one months. This court requires counsel to
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-