United States v. Wiggins , 131 F. App'x 932 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4039
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MATTHEW JOHN WIGGINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CR-99-199)
Submitted: April 29, 2005 Decided: May 19, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner,
United States Attorney, Stephanie L. Ojeda, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Matthew John Wiggins appeals from the district court’s
order revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of
twelve months imprisonment. Wiggins’ attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
addressing whether there are any meritorious issues for appeal.
Although informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
Wiggins has not done so.
We review the district court’s decision to revoke a
defendant’s supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). The district
court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised
release by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp. 2004). Moreover, because Wiggins’
sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum under § 3583(e)(3),
we review the sentence only to determine whether it is “plainly
unreasonable.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) (2000). Our review of
the record discloses no abuse of discretion, and we find that
Wiggins’ sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
Counsel’s brief addresses whether the district court
abused its discretion in imposing a sentence which exceeded the
guideline range in the Chapter 7 policy statements. However, the
sentencing guideline range calculated under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a) (2003) is purely advisory. Davis, 53
- 2 -
F.3d at 642; United States v. Denard, 24 F.3d 599, 602 (4th Cir.
1994).
In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If the client 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 the client. 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
- 3 -