UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4336
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LARRY CLINTON WILSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-94-206)
Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 4, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Larry Clinton Wilson, Jr., appeals from the district
court’s order revoking his supervised release and imposing a
twenty-month sentence. Wilson’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that there
were no meritorious issues for appeal, but addressing the length of
the sentence. Wilson was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Because our review of
the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm the revocation
of Wilson’s supervised release and the sentence imposed.
Based on Wilson’s admissions, the district court found
that Wilson violated the conditions of his supervision and properly
revoked his supervision. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp.
2004). Wilson challenges the length of the sentence, which
exceeded the six-to-twelve month range suggested by the Sentencing
Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a)
(1994). However, this range is not binding on the sentencing
court. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 640-41 (4th Cir.
1995). Indeed, a greater sentence may be warranted where, as here,
the original sentence was the result of a downward departure. See
USSG § 7B1.4, comment. (n.4). Because Wilson received a
significant downward departure from his original sentence and he
previously violated the terms of his supervision, the district
court’s decision to impose a sentence above the range suggested in
- 2 -
§ 7B1.4(a) was reasonable. Additionally, we note that the
imprisonment and supervised release terms did not exceed the
maximum sentence that could be imposed on revocation. See 18
U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3); Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 702
(2000); United States v. Maxwell, 285 F.3d 336, 341 (4th Cir.
2002). Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm the district court’s order revoking Wilson’s supervised
release and imposing a twenty-month sentence. This court requires
that counsel inform his 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 -