UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4940
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BERNARD KNIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CR-01-48)
Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: April 5, 2005
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Lisa A. Broccoletti,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul Joseph McNulty, United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia; Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United
States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Knight appeals the district court’s order
imposing a thirty-six month term of imprisonment and a twenty-four
month term of imprisonment, to be served concurrently, upon
revocation of his supervised release. Knight’s counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
suggesting the district court abused its discretion in sentencing
Knight. Although informed of his right to do so, Knight 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 Knight’s 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
Knight’s 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 Knight’s
sentence. This court requires 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 a petition be
- 2 -
filed, but counsel believes 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 -