US v. Darrell Barnes
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRELL BARNES, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00211-JAB-1)
April 16, 2009
May 6, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Darrell Barnes appeals from the revocation of his
supervised release and the imposition of an eight-month prison term to be followed Barnes' by a fifty-two-month has filed a term brief of supervised to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there were no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the length of the supervised release term. Although informed of his right We
to do so, Barnes has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. affirm.
When a court revokes supervised release and imposes a term of imprisonment, it may also reimpose a term of supervised release. term of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) (2006). supervised release shall not "The length of such a exceed the term of
supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in the original term of supervised release, less any term of imprisonment that Id. was imposed upon revocation of
Thus, when the district court revoked
Barnes' supervised release and imposed an active prison term of eight months, it had the authority to impose up to fifty-two months of supervised release (sixty month statutory maximum
based upon Barnes' underlying convictions minus eight months). See United States v. Maxwell, 285 F.3d 336, 342 (4th Cir. 2002).
In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in this case and found no meritorious issues for review. Accordingly, we 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 for further filed, review. but If the client requests such a that a petition would be be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that We dispense with oral
a 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
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?