United States v. Grice , 427 F. App'x 246 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-4654
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ROLANDER YARBAROU GRICE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.   Frank D. Whitney,
    District Judge. (3:03-cr-00013-FDW-1)
    Submitted:   April 19, 2011                       Decided:   May 3, 2011
    Before KING and    DAVIS,     Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    C. Dennis Gibson, DENNIS GIBSON LAW, PLLC, Ridgecrest, North
    Carolina, for Appellant. Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Rolander    Yarbarou     Grice      was    sentenced    to     a    twelve
    month and one day term of imprisonment following the revocation
    of   his   supervised    release.        Grice’s       counsel    filed     a       brief
    pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), stating
    his opinion that there are no meritorious issue for appeal but
    questioning whether Grice’s sentence was reasonable.                      Grice was
    notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
    has not filed a brief.           The Government has declined to file a
    responsive brief.       We affirm.
    We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
    supervised release if it is not plainly unreasonable.                           United
    States v. Thompson, 
    595 F.3d 544
    , 546 (4th Cir. 2010).                                The
    first step in this review requires a determination of whether
    the sentence is unreasonable.            United States v. Crudup, 
    461 F.3d 433
    , 438 (4th Cir. 2006).            “This initial inquiry takes a more
    ‘deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the
    exercise     of   discretion’        than      reasonableness        review          for
    guidelines sentences.”       United States v. Moulden, 
    478 F.3d 652
    ,
    656 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Crudup, 
    461 F.3d at 439
    ) (applying
    “plainly    unreasonable”        standard       of      review    for      probation
    revocation).        Only    if     the       sentence     is     procedurally         or
    substantively     unreasonable      does      the     inquiry    proceed       to    the
    2
    second step of the analysis to determine whether the sentence is
    plainly unreasonable.             Crudup, 
    461 F.3d at 438-39
    .
    A        supervised          release          revocation           sentence      is
    procedurally     reasonable         if    the      district      court        considered    the
    advisory policy statement range based upon Chapter Seven of the
    Sentencing Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors applicable to
    supervised release revocation.                  See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e) (2006);
    Crudup,    
    461 F.3d at 438-40
    .          A    sentence        is    substantively
    reasonable      if    the    district      court        stated     a    proper      basis   for
    concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up
    to the statutory maximum.                Crudup, 
    461 F.3d at 440
    .                    “A court
    need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation
    sentence as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence,
    but   it   still      must    provide      a       statement       of    reasons      for   the
    sentence     imposed.”            Thompson,         
    595 F.3d at 547
        (internal
    quotation marks omitted).                Our review of the record leads us to
    conclude    that      the    sentence      imposed         after       Grice’s      supervised
    release revocation was not plainly unreasonable.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
    in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    This court requires that counsel inform Grice, in writing, of
    the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
    further review.         If Grice requests that a petition be filed, but
    counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
    3
    counsel    may    move   in    this   court   for    leave   to   withdraw   from
    representation.      Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
    was served on Grice.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal    contentions     are    adequately     presented     in   the   materials
    before    the    court   and   argument      would   not   aid    the   decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-4654

Citation Numbers: 427 F. App'x 246

Judges: Davis, Hamilton, King, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 5/3/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023