United States v. Green , 231 F. App'x 259 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4092
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DWAYNE MAURICE GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:03-cr-01011-CMC)
Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 27, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Hunter Young, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne M. Green appeals the district court’s order
affirming a magistrate judge’s revocation of Green’s supervised
release and imposition of a ten-month term of imprisonment.
Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), asserting there are no non-frivolous grounds for
appeal, but questioning whether the magistrate judge abused its
discretion in revoking Green’s supervised release and whether the
sentence imposed is plainly unreasonable. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in revoking Green’s
supervised release. We further find the sentence imposed by the
magistrate judge, and affirmed by the district court, was not
plainly unreasonable because it is below the statutory maximum
sentence of one year and within the advisory guideline range of
seven to thirteen months. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d
433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied 127 S.Ct. 1813 (2007); 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §
7B1.4(a) (2005).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Therefore, we
affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires
that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to
- 2 -
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 -