US v. Roscoe Small, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:00-cr-00331-NCT-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999694425].. [15-4269]

Appeal: 15-4269

Doc: 25

Filed: 11/06/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4269

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROSCOE HOWARD SMALL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:00-cr-00331-NCT-1)

Submitted:

October 30, 2015

Decided:

November 6, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
JoAnna Gibson McFadden, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greensboro,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4269

Doc: 25

Filed: 11/06/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Roscoe

Howard

Small,

Jr.,

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
24

months’

imprisonment.

Small’s

counsel

has

filed

a

brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning
whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting
hearsay evidence during Small’s revocation hearing.

Small was

advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
has not filed one.

We affirm.

At the revocation hearing, Small’s counsel objected to a
police

officer’s

anonymous caller.

testimony

describing

the

statement

of

an

The district court, however, made clear that

it considered this testimony merely for context and not for the
truth of the caller’s statement.
hearsay.

The statement was thus not

See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2).

Small’s counsel also

objected to the district court’s consideration of the officer’s
testimony about a second officer’s out-of-court statement.

On

examination by the court, the witness officer clarified that the
basis for his testimony was his own personal knowledge, not the
second

officer’s

statement.

We

therefore

conclude

that

the

district court did not err in overruling both objections, for
the officer’s testimony did not contain inadmissible hearsay.

2

Appeal: 15-4269

In

Doc: 25

Filed: 11/06/2015

accordance

with

Pg: 3 of 3

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We

therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Small, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Small requests that a petition be filed, but

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

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Small.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3