UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID WALTER PITTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CR-03-152)
Submitted: May 6, 2005 Decided: May 23, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner,
United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States
Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Walter Pitts appeals the district court’s order
imposing a twelve-month term of imprisonment upon revocation of his
supervised release. Pitts’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there were no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issue of whether
the district court erred in sentencing Pitts. Although informed of
his right to do so, Pitts has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief.
We will reverse a district court’s order imposing a sentence
after revocation of supervised release only if it is “plainly
unreasonable.” See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(a)(4). Pitts’ offense has a
recommended guidelines range, and the district court imposed a
sentence within that range. We conclude that Pitts’ sentence was
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 Pitts’
sentence. This court requires counsel inform their client, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
State for further review. If the client requests a petition be
filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
- 2 -
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 -