US v. Michael William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:99-cr-00017-WO-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998447131] [10-4288]

US v. Michael William

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4288 Document: 27

Date Filed: 10/18/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4288 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:99-cr-00017-WO-1) Submitted: September 22, 2010 Decided: October 18, 2010

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4288 Document: 27

Date Filed: 10/18/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Following Michael Williams' months a hearing, the district and court revoked him to His

supervised in prison.

release

sentenced now

twenty-one

Williams

appeals.

attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Williams was advised of his We

right to file a pro se brief, but did not file such a brief. affirm.

At the revocation hearing, Williams admitted violating a condition of release by using controlled substances on several occasions. There were no objections to the probation officer's that Williams, who was in criminal history

determination

category VI, had committed a Grade B release violation and that his advisory in Guidelines The range court his was twenty-one from for to twenty-seven and into from drug

months

prison. who

heard

counsel

Williams, abuse.

explained

reasons

relapsing

We

review

the

district

court's

decision

to

revoke

supervised release for abuse of discretion.

United States v.

Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Armstrong, 187 F.3d 392, 394 (4th Cir. 1999). In light of

Williams' admission at the hearing, we conclude that revocation of release was not an abuse of discretion. 2

Case: 10-4288 Document: 27

Date Filed: 10/18/2010

Page: 3

In the Anders brief, counsel argues that the sentence is excessive and that the district of his court did not into properly substance

consider abuse.

Williams'

explanation

relapse

We will affirm a sentence imposed following revocation

of supervised release if it is within the applicable statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v.

Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir 2006). of the record reveals that the sentence

Here, our review falls within the

statutory maximum of five years. (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). reasonable: considered in both

See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3)

Further, the sentence is procedurally Williams, 7 policy the district and court the 18

sentencing the Chapter

statements

U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010) factors that it is permitted to consider. See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-40.

Finally, the sentence is substantively reasonable, for the court adequately explained its reasons for imposing the sentence. id. at 440. the into In this regard, and contrary Williams' court to See

Williams' at its

contention, sentencing

court

clearly

took The

statement expressed

consideration.

appreciation for Williams' candor and stated that such candor and Williams' support system were the reasons it was not

imposing a longer sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 3

Case: 10-4288 Document: 27

Date Filed: 10/18/2010

Page: 4

appeal.

We therefore affirm.

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 of the motion was served on his 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