US v. Dana Sander

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:03-cr-00142-CCE-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999836678].. [15-4559]

Appeal: 15-4559

Doc: 23

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4559

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANA SANDER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:03-cr-00142-CCE-2)

Submitted:

May 26, 2016

Decided:

May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Stephen Thomas Inman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4559

Doc: 23

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dana Sander appeals from her 15-month sentence imposed upon
revocation

of

her

supervised

release.

Sander’s

counsel

has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967),

asserting

that

there

are

no

meritorious

issues,

but

noting that Sander objected below to the classification of one
of her supervised release violations, possession of cocaine, as
a Grade B violation.

The Government declined to file a brief.

Sander did not file a pro se supplemental brief.

Finding no

error, we affirm.
Sander
5-year

term

originally
of

received

supervised

a

210-month

release.

sentence

After

a

reductions, Sander’s sentence became 124 months.
States

Probation

Office

filed

a

petition

for

Sander’s supervised release on July 13, 2015.

with

series

a
of

The United
revocation

of

At the revocation

hearing, Sander admitted the violations alleged in the petition,
but argued that the possession of cocaine violation should be
classified as a Grade C violation instead of a Grade B violation
because the alleged offense was not a felony.

Sander contended

that, because the Justice Reinvestment Act of 2011, 2011 N.C.
Sess.

Laws

192

(JRA),

on

the

North

Carolina

Structured

Sentencing Act, would require her placement on supervision for
the applicable offense before she had been imprisoned for one
year, the offense was not a felony.
2

Since Sander’s revocation

Appeal: 15-4559

Doc: 23

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

hearing, we have decided a case that definitively rejects her
argument.

See United States v. Barlow, 811 F.3d 133, 140 (4th

Cir. 2015) (“state law renders post-release supervision part of
the term of imprisonment” so that “in every case, North Carolina
law now exposes felons to terms of imprisonment exceeding one
year”), petition

for

cert.

filed,

No.

15-8925

(U.S.

Apr.

8,

2016).
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

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

We therefore affirm Sander’s revocation of supervised

release and sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform

Sander, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review.
that

a

petition

be

filed,

but

counsel

If Sander requests

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 Sander.
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