UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4973
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LEON COLLINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,
District Judge. (CR-00-125)
Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: June 29, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Megan J. Schueler,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Paula S.
Klotzbach, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Leon Collins appeals the district court’s imposition of
a twenty-one-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by a
fifteen-month term of supervised release, upon revocation of his
supervised release.
Collins’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but suggesting that the district
court abused its discretion in sentencing Collins. Although
informed of his right to do so, Collins has not filed a
supplemental brief.
We review a district court’s order imposing a sentence
after revocation of supervised release for an abuse of discretion.
United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 438, 442-43 (4th Cir. 1995).
Moreover, because Collins’ sentence does not exceed the maximum
under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000), we review the sentence to
determine only whether it is plainly unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742(a)(4) (2000). Upon review of the record, we conclude that
Collins’ twenty-one-month sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Collins’
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court
- 2 -
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 -