US v. Rodriguez Grier

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:99-cr-00161-MOC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999785734]. [15-4598]

Appeal: 15-4598

Doc: 36

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4598

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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)

Submitted:

March 29, 2016

Decided:

March 31, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4598

Doc: 36

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rodriguez

Clintonian

Grier

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing
him

to

12

months’

imprisonment.

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

erred

in

finding

violated the terms of his supervised release.

that

Grier

had

Although advised

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Grier has not
done so.

The Government has declined to file a response brief.

Following our review of the record, we affirm.
We

review

judgment

for

revoking

imprisonment.

abuse

of

supervised

discretion
release

a

and

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
evidence.
831.

of

supervised

release

by

a

preponderance

of

the

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

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear

error.

United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 372–73 (4th Cir.

2015).
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
2

Appeal: 15-4598

Doc: 36

Filed: 03/31/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

record that Grier was under an order of supervision at the time
he

committed

the

revocation petition.

violations

alleged

in

this,

his

fifth

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
have

found

no

meritorious

issues

for

affirm the district court’s judgment.

appeal.

We

therefore

This court requires that

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

If Grier

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 Grier.
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