UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4045
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHAWN LESTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-01-33)
Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: July 8, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, John J. Frail,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Shawn Lester appeals from the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-three
months imprisonment. Lester’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), representing that, in
her view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising
one potential claim. Lester has been notified of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
Counsel claims that the district court erred because it
sentenced Lester outside the eight-to-fourteen month guideline
range calculated under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 7B1.4, p.s. (2002). Chapter Seven of the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual sets forth policy statements offering recommended
sentencing ranges for revocation of probation and supervised
release. Chapter Seven is advisory and non-binding. United
States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 640-41 (4th Cir. 1995). However, the
court should consider the policy statements before imposing
sentence. Id. If the court has considered the relevant factors
and the applicable policy statements, the court has the discretion
to impose a sentence outside the ranges set forth in the
Guidelines. Id. Because the district court was presented with and
explicitly considered the suggested sentencing range of USSG
§ 7B1.4, and Lester’s sentence does not exceed the statutory
- 2 -
maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2000), we find no reversible error
in Lester’s sentence.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Lester’s sentence. This court requires that counsel inform her
client, in writing, of his 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 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 -