US v. Lawrence Hawkins, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to extend filing time [999623098-2] Originating case number: 2:04-cr-00060-AWA-TEM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999639744].. [15-4073]

Appeal: 15-4073

Doc: 27

Filed: 08/13/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4073

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAWRENCE LEO HAWKINS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:04-cr-00060-AWA-TEM-1)

Submitted:

July 20, 2015

Decided:

August 13, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry Dennis Harmon, Jr., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, William D. Muhr,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4073

Doc: 27

Filed: 08/13/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

Hawkins,

appeals

PER CURIAM:
Lawrence
order

Leo

imposing

a

24-month

supervised release.
erred

when

revocation

it

his

and

National

jurisdiction over him. 1
“‘Affidavit

of

sentence

the

after

district
it

court’s

revoked

his

Hawkins asserts that the district court

denied

hearing,

Moorish-American

Jr.,

Sworn

motion

also

for

argues

divested

a

continuance

that
the

his

status

district

of
as

court

the
a
of

Hawkins has also filed a self-styled

Truth-Supplemental

Appeal’

Brief[,]”

in

which he requests an extension of time to file a memorandum of
law. 2

Finding no error, we affirm.
We review the district court’s denial of a motion for a

continuance

for

abuse

of

discretion.

See

United

States

v.

1

Although Hawkins’ counsel asserts that the issue
pertaining to the motion for a continuance is meritorious, he
asserts that the jurisdictional issue is raised pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and concedes that the
issue is meritless.
Because we conclude that counsel’s effort
to combine a meritorious claim with a claim conceded to be
lacking in merit does not comport with the Anders framework, see
id. at 744-45 (setting forth procedure to be followed when
counsel finds “case to be wholly frivolous”), we decline to
consider this appeal pursuant to Anders.
2

Because Hawkins is represented by counsel who has filed a
merits brief, he is not entitled to file a pro se supplemental
brief. Accordingly, we deny his motion for an extension of time
to file a memorandum of law. See United States v. Penniegraft,
641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th Cir. 2011) (denying motion to file
pro se supplemental brief because the defendant was represented
by counsel).

2

Appeal: 15-4073

Doc: 27

Filed: 08/13/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 531 (4th Cir. 2013).
abuses

its

discretion

continuance

is

“an

expeditiousness

in

delay[.]”

when

its

unreasoning
the

face

denial

and
of

A district court
of

a

motion

for

insistence

arbitrary

a

upon

justifiable

request

for

Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11–12 (1983) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

“Even if such an abuse of discretion

is found, the defendant must show that the error specifically
prejudiced his case in order to prevail.”

Copeland, 707 F.3d at

531 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
The

district

court

did

not

err

when

it

denied

Hawkins’

motion for a continuance.

It is undisputed that Hawkins was

provided

of

the

full

panoply

due

process

rights

during

his

federal trial, including that the offenses be proven beyond a
reasonable

doubt.

sufficient

grounds

Thus,
for

the

Hawkins’
district

convictions

court

to

provided

conclude,

by

a

preponderance of the evidence, that Hawkins’ violated the terms
of his supervised release.

Accordingly, the district court did

not

when

abuse

its

discretion

it

refused

to

continue

the

revocation hearing pending the conclusion of his direct appeal.
See United States v. Spraglin, 418 F.3d 479, 480-81 (5th Cir.
2005) (rejecting appellant’s argument that the district court
abused its discretion in revoking his supervised release based
on

evidence

of

his

state

murder

conviction,

which

was

still

pending on appeal at the time that supervision was revoked);
3

Appeal: 15-4073

Doc: 27

Filed: 08/13/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

United States v. Fleming, 9 F.3d 1253, 1254 (7th Cir. 1993)
(“The

conviction

itself,

whether

or

not

an

appeal

is

taken,

provides adequate proof of the violation of state law to justify
revoking probation.”).
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 3
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3

We agree with counsel that Hawkins’ argument pertaining to
the district court’s jurisdiction over him is meritless. See 18
U.S.C. § 3231 (2012) (“The district courts of the United States
shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the
States, of all offenses against the laws of the United
States.”).

4