United States v. Ledarius Montgomery

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4685
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LEDARIUS DANTE MONTGOMERY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00086-JAB-1)
Submitted: March 18, 2015 Decided: March 23, 2015
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS & STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ledarius Dante Montgomery appeals the district court’s
order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 22
months’ imprisonment. Montgomery’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but briefly
raising whether (1) Montgomery’s sentence was unreasonable,
(2) the court denied Montgomery an opportunity to be heard at
sentencing, (3) Montgomery had ineffective assistance of
counsel, and (4) prosecutorial misconduct occurred. Montgomery
was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
but he has not filed one. We affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United
States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We will
affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory
maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). Because Montgomery did not challenge
his sentence’s procedural or substantive reasonableness before
the district court, we review his sentence only for plain error.
Webb, 738 F.3d at 640-41.
Applying these standards, we note that counsel pointed to
no specific error in the sentence and conclude that Montgomery’s
sentence is not unreasonable, much less plainly so. Next, the
2
record demonstrates that Montgomery had an opportunity to
address the district court and contains no evidence of
prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, we decline to address
Montgomery’s ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal. See
United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010)
(providing standard).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Montgomery, in writing,
of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If Montgomery 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 Montgomery.
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