United States v. Lazurick

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 02-4531 CARRIE JEAN LAZURICK, Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-1168) Submitted: November 6, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL Benjamin T. Stepp, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). 2 UNITED STATES v. LAZURICK OPINION PER CURIAM: Carrie Jean Lazurick appeals the district court’s amended judgment revoking her probation and imposing a nine month term of imprison- ment. Lazurick’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. Cali- fornia, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), claiming there are no meritorious issues on appeal but stating the court may have abused its discretion by imposing a term of imprisonment. Although advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Lazurick has not done so. We affirm. Upon finding a probation violation, the district court may revoke probation and resentence the defendant to any sentence within the statutory maximum for the original offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a)(2000); United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d 505, 507 (4th Cir. 1997). Lazurick admitted to three Grade C violations of proba- tion. The district court found Lazurick committed a fourth Grade C violation. Because the district court imposed a sentence within the properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines’ range of imprisonment, there was no abuse of discretion. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a) (2000). Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for revers- ible error and found none. We therefore affirm the district court’s order revoking Lazurick’s probation and imposing a nine month term of imprisonment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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 this court for leave to withdraw from representa- tion. 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