US v. Rolander Grice

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:03-cr-00013-FDW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998581133].. [10-4654]

Appeal: 10-4654

Document: 30

Date Filed: 05/03/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4654

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROLANDER YARBAROU GRICE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:03-cr-00013-FDW-1)

Submitted:

April 19, 2011

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

DAVIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 3, 2011

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. Dennis Gibson, DENNIS GIBSON LAW, PLLC, Ridgecrest, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4654

Document: 30

Date Filed: 05/03/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Rolander

Yarbarou

Grice

was

sentenced

to

a

twelve

month and one day term of imprisonment following the revocation
of

his

supervised

release.

Grice’s

counsel

filed

a

brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
his opinion that there are no meritorious issue for appeal but
questioning whether Grice’s sentence was reasonable.

Grice was

notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
has not filed a brief.
responsive brief.

The Government has declined to file a

We affirm.

We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is not plainly unreasonable.

United

States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010).

The

first step in this review requires a determination of whether
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d

the sentence is unreasonable.
433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006).

“This initial inquiry takes a more

‘deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the
exercise

of

discretion’

guidelines sentences.”

than

reasonableness

review

for

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652,

656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439) (applying
“plainly

unreasonable”

revocation).
substantively

Only

standard

if

unreasonable

does

2

review

sentence

the

of

is

the

inquiry

for

probation

procedurally
proceed

to

or
the

Appeal: 10-4654

Document: 30

Date Filed: 05/03/2011

Page: 3 of 4

second step of the analysis to determine whether the sentence is
plainly unreasonable.
A

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 438-39.

supervised

procedurally

reasonable

release
if

the

revocation

district

sentence

court

is

considered

the

advisory policy statement range based upon Chapter Seven of the
Sentencing Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors applicable to
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006);

supervised release revocation.
Crudup,

461

reasonable

F.3d

if

the

at

438-40.

district

A

court

sentence
stated

is

a

substantively

proper

basis

for

concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up
Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.

to the statutory maximum.

“A court

need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation
sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence,
but

it

sentence

still

must

imposed.”

provide

that

the

statement

Thompson,

quotation marks omitted).
conclude

a

595

F.3d

of

reasons
at

547

for

the

(internal

Our review of the record leads us to

sentence

imposed

after

Grice’s

supervised

release revocation was not plainly unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
This court requires that counsel inform Grice, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Grice requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
3

Appeal: 10-4654

Document: 30

counsel

may

move

representation.

Date Filed: 05/03/2011

in

this

court

for

Page: 4 of 4

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Grice.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4