United States v. Melvin Quick , 675 F. App'x 338 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4473
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MELVIN QUICK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief
District Judge. (3:96-cr-00134-FDW-6)
Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew B. Kaplan, THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM PLLC, Arlington, Virginia,
for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Quick appeals the district court’s judgment revoking
his term of supervised release and sentencing him to seven months
of imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether sufficient
evidence supports the revocation. Although advised of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, Quick has not done so. The
Government has declined to file a response brief. Following our
review of the record, we affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s judgment
revoking supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment.
United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999); 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. § 3583(e)(3)
(2012); Copley, 978 F.2d at 831. The court’s factual findings are
reviewed for clear error. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370,
373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015). We conclude
that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Quick
violated the stated conditions of supervised release.
Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion by revoking
Quick’s supervised release and ordering a term of imprisonment.
2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm
the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel
inform Quick, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Quick 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 Quick. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3