United States v. Dobbins

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4575
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER DOBBINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00378-TDS-1)
Submitted: February 17, 2010 Decided: March 1, 2010
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
The district court revoked Christopher Dobbins’
supervised release and sentenced him to twenty-seven months in
prison. Dobbins now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether there was sufficient evidence to find that
Dobbins had violated the terms of his release but stating that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Dobbins was
notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
has not filed such a brief. We affirm.
We review the district court’s revocation of
supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). The district court
need only find a violation of a release condition by a
preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2006);
United States v. Armstrong, 187 F.3d 392, 394 (4th Cir. 1999).
We review for clear error the factual determinations underlying
the conclusion that a release violation occurred. United
States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009).
At Dobbins’ revocation proceeding, two police officers
testified that a confidential informant conducted a controlled
purchase of marijuana from Dobbins. One officer who was on the
surveillance team testified that she saw Dobbins exit his car
2
carrying a baggie that appeared to contain marijuana, enter the
informant’s car, and leave a short time later empty-handed.
Following the transaction, the informant turned over a baggie
containing marijuana to the police.
The district court found that a preponderance of the
evidence established that Dobbins had engaged in a drug
transaction as charged* and had thereby violated a release term
requiring that he refrain from violating federal, state, and
local laws. The court revoked release and sentenced him to
twenty-seven months in prison. In light of the testimony at the
hearing, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err
in finding that Dobbins committed the violation. We further
find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
revoking Dobbins’ release.
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with
Anders and have not identified any meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires counsel to
inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the
*
The Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under
Supervision alleged that Dobbins had violated the release
condition when he “was arrested by the Greensboro Police
Department . . . for Felony Possession With Intent to Sell and
Deliver Marijuana . . . .”
3
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, counsel may move in
this court to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion
must state that a copy of the motion 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
4