UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4635
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HORACE BUSH, a/k/a Alvin Bush,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
District Judge. (CR-91-69-NN)
Submitted: March 11, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Gretchen L. Taylor,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Robert E.
Bradenham II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Horace Bush appeals the district court’s order revoking
his supervised release and sentencing him to sixty months’
imprisonment. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no
non-frivolous grounds for appeal, but suggesting that the term of
imprisonment imposed by the district court is unreasonable.* Bush
was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
he has not done so.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Bush’s sentence
is within the statutory maximum sentencing range, and the district
court’s revocation proceedings otherwise comport with due process.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2000). Moreover, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Bush to
the maximum term permitted by statute. Finding no error, we affirm
the judgment of the district court.
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
*
Because the sentencing guidelines relating to revocation of
supervised release have always been advisory, see U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual Ch. 7 Pt. A, the sentence in this appeal is not
impacted by the decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738
(2005).
- 2 -
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 -