US v. Melvin Quick
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:96-cr-00134-FDW-6 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . [16-4473]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief
District Judge. (3:96-cr-00134-FDW-6)
January 31, 2017
February 2, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew B. Kaplan, THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM PLLC, Arlington, Virginia,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Melvin Quick appeals the district court’s judgment revoking
his term of supervised release and sentencing him to seven months
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether sufficient
evidence supports the revocation.
Although advised of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, Quick has not done so.
Government has declined to file a response brief.
review of the record, we affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s judgment
revoking supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment.
United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992).
court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised
release by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)
(2012); Copley, 978 F.2d at 831.
reviewed for clear error.
The court’s factual findings are
United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370,
373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015).
that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Quick
Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion by revoking
Quick’s supervised release and ordering a term of imprisonment.
Pg: 3 of 3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
the district court’s judgment.
We therefore affirm
This court requires that counsel
inform Quick, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review.
If Quick 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 Quick.
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
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?