UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4417
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RUSSELL P. MARTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CR-03-77-01-BO)
Submitted: October 1, 2003 Decided: October 17, 2003
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Christine Witcover Dean,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Russell P. Martin appeals the district court’s order affirming
the twelve-month prison sentence the magistrate judge imposed after
revoking his probation. Martin asserts that his sentence, which
was greater than the recommended sentencing range of three to nine
months of imprisonment, was plainly unreasonable because he
admitted to violating the terms of his probation, he answered
truthfully the inquiries by his probation officer, and his
violations were relatively minor. Martin also contends that the
sentencing judge failed to consider the factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2000), before imposing the sentence. In addition, Martin
filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging his original sentence
of twelve months of probation. Finding no error, we affirm.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in affirming Martin’s
sentence of twelve months of imprisonment. See United States v.
Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995) (providing standard of
review). Martin’s sentence was within the statutory maximum, see
21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2000), and the magistrate judge properly
considered the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a), including
the recommended sentence provided for in Chapter 7 of the
sentencing guidelines. We further conclude that Martin failed to
raise any meritorious issues in his pro se supplemental brief.
2
Accordingly, we grant Martin’s motion for leave to file a pro
se supplemental brief and affirm the order of the district court.
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