US v. Rodriguez Grier
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:99-cr-00161-MOC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [15-4598]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
RODRIGUEZ CLINTONIAN GRIER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:99-cr-00161-MOC-1)
March 29, 2016
March 31, 2016
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wallace H. Jordan, Jr., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
judgment revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
violated the terms of his supervised release.
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Grier has not
The Government has declined to file a response brief.
Following our review of the record, we affirm.
United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th
Cir. 1999); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir.
The district court need only find a violation of a
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012); Copley, 978 F.2d at
We review the district court’s factual findings for clear
United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 372–73 (4th Cir.
We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in
finding that Grier violated the terms of his supervised release.
Despite Grier’s suggestion to the contrary, it is clear from the
Pg: 3 of 3
record that Grier was under an order of supervision at the time
Accordingly, the court did not abuse its
discretion by revoking Grier’s supervised release and ordering a
term of imprisonment.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and
affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that
counsel inform Grier, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
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.
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Grier.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?