US v. Ralph Roseboro

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:06-cr-00005-RJC-DCK-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999613791].. [14-4949]

Appeal: 14-4949

Doc: 23

Filed: 07/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4949

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RALPH ANTHONY ROSEBORO,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00005-RJC-DCK-1)

Submitted:

June 23, 2015

Decided:

July 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Demers, THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID DEMERS, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4949

Doc: 23

Filed: 07/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Ralph

Anthony

Roseboro

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing
him

to

24

months’

imprisonment.

Counsel

has

filed

a

brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that

there

advised

are
his

of

no

meritorious

right

to

for

a

file

Roseboro has not done so.
response brief.

issues

se

pro

appeal.

Although

supplemental

brief,

The Government has declined to file a

Following our careful review of the record, we

affirm.
We
judgment

review

for

revoking

imprisonment.

abuse

of

supervised

discretion
release

and

a

district

imposing

a

court’s
term

of

United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th

Cir. 1999); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir.
1992).

The district court need only find a violation of a

condition

of

evidence.
831.

supervised

release

by

a

preponderance

of

the

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012); Copley, 978 F.2d at

The court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error.

United States v. Padgett, __ F.3d __, 2015 WL 3561289, *1 (4th
Cir. 2015).

We conclude that the district court did not clearly

err in finding that Roseboro violated a condition of supervised
release.

Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion by

revoking supervised release and ordering a term of imprisonment.

2

Appeal: 14-4949

Doc: 23

Filed: 07/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

We will affirm a revocation sentence if it falls within the
prescribed

statutory

range

and

is

not

plainly

unreasonable.

United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).
making

this

determination,

we

first

consider

whether

In
the

sentence imposed is procedurally or substantively unreasonable,
applying the same general considerations employed in review of
original criminal sentences.
433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006).

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
“This initial inquiry takes a more

deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the
exercise

of

discretion

than

reasonableness

review

for

[Sentencing G]uidelines sentences.”

United States v. Moulden,

478

(internal

F.3d

omitted).

652,

656

(4th

Cir.

2007)

quotation

marks

Only if we find the sentence unreasonable will we

consider whether it is “plainly” so.

United States v. Moulden,

478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007).
A

supervised

release

reasonable

if

the

statements

contained

revocation

district
in

court

Chapter

sentence

is

considered

Seven

of

the

procedurally
the

policy

Sentencing

Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors applicable
to revocation sentences.
F.3d at 641.

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012); Webb, 738

A revocation sentence is substantively reasonable

if the district court stated a proper basis for concluding the
defendant

should

statutory maximum.

receive

the

sentence

imposed,

Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440.
3

up

to

the

Appeal: 14-4949

Doc: 23

In

this

Filed: 07/02/2015

case,

the

Pg: 4 of 4

record

reveals

substantive error by the district court.

no

procedural

or

We thus conclude that

Roseboro’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and
have

found

no

meritorious

issues

for

affirm the district court’s judgment.

appeal.

We

therefore

This court requires that

counsel inform Roseboro, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If

Roseboro 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 thereof was served on
Roseboro.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4