US v. Melvin Quick

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:96-cr-00134-FDW-6 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000015638]. [16-4473]

Appeal: 16-4473

Doc: 28

Filed: 02/02/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4473

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

Submitted:

January 31, 2017

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4473

Doc: 28

Filed: 02/02/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Melvin Quick appeals the district court’s judgment revoking
his term of supervised release and sentencing him to seven months
of imprisonment.

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California,

U.S.

386

738

(1967),

stating

that

there

are

no

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.

The

Following our

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).

The district

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).

We conclude

that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Quick
violated

the

stated

conditions

of

supervised

release.

Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion by revoking
Quick’s supervised release and ordering a term of imprisonment.

2

Appeal: 16-4473

Doc: 28

Filed: 02/02/2017

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
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3