USA v. Douglas Oliver

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: SMITH, JORDAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 4. Judge: SMITH Authoring. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

Case: 14-3261

Document: 003111912151

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/24/2015

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 14-3261
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DOUGLAS E. OLIVER,
a/k/a Bird
Douglas E. Oliver,
Appellant
_____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
District Court No. 1-07-cr-00443-001
District Judge: The Honorable Renee M. Bumb
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
March 16, 2015
Before: SMITH, JORDAN, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: March 24, 2015)
_____________________
OPINION
_____________________


This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does
not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-3261

Document: 003111912151

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/24/2015

SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Douglas Oliver pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey sentenced Oliver to 46 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a
three year term of supervised release. After commencing his term of supervised
release on October 22, 2012, Oliver had difficulty complying with the conditions
of the program. The District Court twice modified the terms of Oliver’s supervised
release. In May of 2014, a probation officer asked the District Court to issue a
warrant for Oliver’s arrest.

The petition seeking the warrant set out three

violations. Oliver pleaded guilty to violation number one, and the District Court
found that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. After considering the
arguments of the parties and the sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
the District Court sentenced Oliver to an eight month term of imprisonment for the
supervised release violation and a new twenty-eight month term of supervised
release. Thereafter, Oliver filed a pro se Notice of Appeal.1
Oliver’s counsel filed a brief asserting that she did not have any nonfrivolous issues to present for appellate review and requested permission to

1

The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We have
appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
2

Case: 14-3261

Document: 003111912151

Page: 3

Date Filed: 03/24/2015

withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).2
We agree with counsel’s assessment of Oliver’s appeal.3 The District Court’s
colloquy at the revocation proceeding was thorough, and the record supports the
District Court’s finding that Oliver’s guilty plea to violation number one was
knowing and voluntary. In light of the guilty plea and given Oliver’s repeated
failure to comply with the terms of his supervised release, there is sufficient
evidence to support the District Court’s revocation of Oliver’s term of supervised
release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (providing that supervised release may be
revoked upon finding a violation “by a preponderance of the evidence”).
With regard to the sentence imposed, we conclude there is no basis for
disturbing it.

Our review of the transcript of the revocation proceeding

demonstrates that the District Court correctly computed the advisory guideline
range, accurately recited the applicable statutory penalties, thoughtfully considered
the sentencing factors in § 3553(a), and explained its reasons for imposing a
sentence that included both a term of imprisonment and a new term of supervised

2

Counsel served Oliver with a copy of the Anders brief and her motion to
withdraw as counsel. Consistent with Third Circuit L.A.R. 109.2(a), the Clerk’s
Office advised Oliver of his right to file a pro se brief within thirty days of the
notice. Oliver failed to file a pro se brief with the Clerk.
3
We review the District Court’s decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of
discretion, but we apply clear error review to factual findings and plenary review
to legal issues. United States v. Maloney, 513 F.3d 350, 354 (3d Cir. 2008).
3

Case: 14-3261

release.4

Document: 003111912151

Page: 4

Date Filed: 03/24/2015

Because the sentence is neither procedurally nor substantively

unreasonable, we will not disturb it. United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567-68
(3d Cir. 2009).
Our own independent review of the record fails to reveal any non-frivolous
issue to consider. For that reason, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment and
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. We certify that the issues presented in this
appeal lack legal merit and do not require the filing of a petition for writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court. 3d Cir. LAR 109.2(b).

4

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) (authorizing, upon revocation of supervised release, the
imposition of a new term of supervised release following a term of imprisonment).
4