US v. Lance Brown
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. LANCE EMANUEL BROWN, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Chief District Judge. (1:00-cr-00263-JAB-1; 1:00-cr-00365-JAB-1)
January 29, 2009
February 12, 2009
Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Lance Emanuel Brown appeals the district court's
judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of five months in prison and thirty-one months of supervised release. On appeal, Brown's attorney has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court erred in denying Brown's motion to dismiss the petition regarding revocation of
supervised release, because his revocation hearing was not held within a reasonable time under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2).
Brown was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
After absconding from supervision, Brown was arrested in Florida on January 28, 2008. On January 30, 2008, Brown
appeared before a magistrate judge in Florida who ordered him returned to the Middle District of North Carolina. He arrived
in the district around February 14, 2008, and after appointment of counsel, he signed a waiver of preliminary hearing and
detention hearing on February 23, 2008.
On February 25, 2008,
the magistrate judge accepted Brown's waiver and ordered that the revocation hearing be noticed by the clerk. On April 24,
2008, the clerk notified the parties that the hearing would be held on May 5, 2008, which was seventy days after the magistrate 2
judge accepted Brown's waiver of a probable cause hearing. May 1, 2008, Brown moved to dismiss the petition
revocation of supervised release, contending that the district court failed to hold the revocation hearing within a reasonable time as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2). At the hearing
on May 5, 2008, Brown admitted the violations alleged in the petition. The district court denied Brown's motion to dismiss
the petition, revoked his supervised release, and sentenced him within both his advisory guideline range and statutory limits. On appeal, Brown's attorney concedes he is unable to point to facts supporting a ruling that Brown's hearing was not held within a reasonable time. Moreover, because Brown admitted
the violations, and the three months he spent in custody prior to the hearing were credited against his five-month prison
sentence, he concedes he cannot contest the district court's finding that he suffered no prejudice. We conclude that the
district court held the revocation hearing within a reasonable time as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2), and the court did not err in denying Brown's motion to dismiss the petition. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States 3
for further review. filed, but counsel
If the client requests that a petition be 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
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?