US v. Maultsby
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHATAN MAULTSBY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-50)
Submitted: July 25, 2006
Decided: July 31, 2006
Before MOTZ, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Chatan Maultsby appeals from the district court's order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four months of imprisonment. Maultsby's attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), representing that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the issue of whether the district court erred in imposing Maultsby's sentence. Although he was advised of his right to file Finding no
a pro se supplemental brief, Maultsby has not done so.
meritorious issues and no error by the district court, we affirm the revocation order and the sentence imposed. In light of Maultsby's admission that he violated the terms of his supervision, we find no error by the district court in revoking his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2005); United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). Maultsby challenges the length of the The twenty-four-month term
sentence and supervised release term.
of incarceration imposed by the district court was within the advisory guideline range and was reasonable. See United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2006) (No. 05-4270); 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a). The twenty-four month term of supervised
release imposed following the revocation sentence was within the
- 2 -
statutory maximum and was not "plainly unreasonable." §§ 3583(b), (h); 3742(a)(4) (2000).
In accordance with Anders, we have independently reviewed the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order revoking
Maultsby's supervised release and imposing a twenty-four-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 We dispense with oral
copy thereof was served on the client.
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
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?