US v. Dwayne Stone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00305-MOC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999937777]. [15-4765]

Appeal: 15-4765

Doc: 28

Filed: 09/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4765

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DWAYNE STONE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00305-MOC-1)

Submitted:

August 31, 2016

Decided:

September 29, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard L. Brown, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. BROWN, JR.,
Monroe, North 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-4765

Doc: 28

Filed: 09/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Stone appeals the district court’s order revoking
his

supervised

imprisonment

release

and

36

and

sentencing

months

of

him

supervised

to

15

months’

release.

Stone’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 imposing a term of imprisonment consecutive to
Stone’s

state

sentence

supervised release.

and

by

ordering

a

36-month

district

sentence

upon

court

has

revocation

broad
of

discretion

supervised

We affirm.

when

imposing

release.”

States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013).
affirm

a

revocation

sentence

if

it

is

within

maximum and is not ‘plainly unreasonable.’”

the

no

consecutive
§ 7B1.3(f)
consecutive

error

in

sentence.
(1997)

the

district

See

(policy

sentences).

U.S.

We

court’s

Sentencing

statement
also

a

United
We “will
statutory

Id. (quoting United

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)).
discern

of

Stone was advised of his right to file a

pro se supplemental brief, but he has not filed one.
“A

term

imposition
Guidelines

expressing

conclude

First, we
of

Manual

preference

that

the

a

for

district

court was well within its statutory discretion to order a 36month

term

of

supervised

release.

(2012).
2

See

18

U.S.C.

§ 3583(h)

Appeal: 15-4765

In

Doc: 28

Filed: 09/29/2016

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

If Stone 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 Stone.
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