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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999785734]. [15-4598]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4598 Doc: 36 Filed: 03/31/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4598 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODRIGUEZ CLINTONIAN GRIER, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?