United States v. Terry , 67 F. App'x 231 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4114
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RANDY TERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-99-515)
Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 24, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Randy Terry appeals from the district court’s order revoking
his supervised release and sentencing him to nine months’
imprisonment after he admitted to four violations of his supervised
release. Terry’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), representing that, in his view,
there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the issue
of whether the district court abused its discretion by revoking
Terry’s supervised release and imposing a nine-month sentence.
Terry has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that his
underlying conviction was not valid, and therefore the subject
nine-month revocation sentence is also invalid. Finding no
meritorious issues and no error by the district court, we affirm
the revocation order and the nine-month sentence.
In light of Terry’s admission that he committed the alleged
violations of his supervision, we find no abuse of discretion by
the district court in revoking Terry’s supervised release and
imposing a nine-month sentence. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West
2000 & Supp. 2003); United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43
(4th Cir. 1995).
Terry seeks to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to
support his underlying conviction for wire fraud. “[A] supervised
release revocation proceeding is not the proper forum in which to
attack the conviction giving rise to the revocation.” United
2
States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir. 1996); see United
States v. Thomas, 934 F.2d 840, 846 (7th Cir. 1991).
In accordance with Anders, we have independently reviewed the
entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly we affirm the district court’s order revoking Terry’s
supervised release and imposing a nine-month sentence. 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