United States v. Spears

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5179
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RICHARD EUGENE SPEARS, a/k/a Trash, a/k/a
Trashmouth,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-185-WLO)
Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 28, 2006
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender; John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney; Angela
Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
In 1995, Richard Eugene Spears was convicted on drug-
related charges and received a seventy-two-month sentence, to be
followed by ten years of supervised release. In August 2001, his
original term of supervised release was revoked and he was
sentenced to seven months of imprisonment to be followed by a
supervised release term of two years. In November 2002, his second
term of supervised release was revoked and he was sentenced to
sixteen months followed by three years of supervised release. In
April 2004, and later in August 2005, Spears’ probation officer
filed petitions to revoke Spears’ supervised release based on
violations of several supervised release conditions. At his
revocation hearing, Spears did not contest the allegations in the
petitions. The district court found that Spears had committed the
charged violations and revoked his supervised release. The court
sentenced Spears to thirty-two months in prison, with no supervised
release term to follow the sentence.
On appeal, Spears’ attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
contending that the district court erred when it imposed a sentence
outside the range recommended by the Chapter 7 advisory policy
statement but stating that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. Although Spears was advised of his right to file a pro se
brief, he has not done so.
- 2 -
We recently held in United States v. Crudup, F.3d
, 2006 WL 2243586 (4th Cir. Aug. 7, 2006), that we review
sentences imposed upon the revocation of supervised release to
determine whether the sentence is “plainly unreasonable.” In this
case, Spears’ sentence was below the statutory maximum of thirty-
seven months imprisonment, the court considered the Chapter 7
advisory policy statement range, and the court stated a proper
basis for its conclusion that Spears be sentenced to thirty-two
months of imprisonment. See Crudup, 2006 WL 2243586, at *5.
Specifically, the court noted that Spears received a downward
departure at his original sentence and this was his third
revocation of supervised release. Because Spears’ sentence was
neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable, we find that
his sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s order revoking Spears’ supervised
release and imposing a thirty-two-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
- 3 -
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 -