United States v. Zee Zelazurro , 585 F. App'x 160 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-4345
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    ZEE ZEE ZELAZURRO,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    No. 14-4346
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    ZEE ZEE ZELAZURRO,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
    of South Carolina, at Columbia.    Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
    District Judge. (3:06-cr-00561-MBS-1)
    Submitted:   October 30, 2014             Decided:   November 7, 2014
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
    South Carolina, for Appellant. Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Zee Zee Zelazurro appeals from the revocation of his
    supervised release and the resulting twelve-month sentence of
    imprisonment.            Counsel   has    filed      a   brief     in    accordance    with
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), certifying that there
    are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
    Zelazurro’s sentence is plainly unreasonable.                           Although notified
    of his right to do so, Zelazurro has not filed a supplemental
    brief.        We affirm.
    “A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
    sentence       upon      revocation      of       supervised       release.”        United
    States v. Webb, 
    738 F.3d 638
    , 640 (4th Cir. 2013).                                “We will
    affirm    a    revocation       sentence      if    it   is    within      the    statutory
    maximum       and   is    not   “‘plainly         unreasonable.’”           
    Id. (quoting United
    States v. Crudup, 
    461 F.3d 433
    , 438 (4th Cir. 2006)).
    “In making this determination, we first consider whether the
    sentence imposed is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.”
    
    Id. Only if
    we so find will “we . . . then decide whether the
    sentence is plainly unreasonable.”                  
    Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439
    .
    After a careful review of the record, we conclude that
    the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
    Zelazurro.          In   accordance      with      Anders,    we    have    reviewed    the
    entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues
    for appeal.         We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment
    3
    revoking Zelazurro’s supervised release and imposing sentence.
    This court requires that counsel inform Zelazurro, in writing,
    of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
    for further review.      If Zelazurro 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 Zelazurro.           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
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-4345

Citation Numbers: 585 F. App'x 160

Filed Date: 11/7/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023