UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5217
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HOSEA ATRAVIS PERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CR-98-305)
Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 26, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Hosea Atravis Perry appeals an order of the district
court revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of
thirteen months imprisonment, to be followed by a consecutive six
months for contempt. Perry’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but
stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. Perry has been informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. We affirm.
In his revocation hearing, Perry admitted three
violations of his supervised release conditions. On appeal, he
does not contest the revocation or his conviction for contempt.
Counsel suggests that the district court erred in sentencing Perry
to thirteen months imprisonment, the high end of the guideline
range applicable under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4
(2004), plus six months for contempt.
Before United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
reviewed a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642
(4th Cir. 1995). This Court has not yet decided whether, after
Booker, the proper standard is reasonableness. However, Perry’s
revocation sentence was within the correctly calculated advisory
guideline range and may be affirmed under either standard.
Similarly, Perry’s six-month contempt sentence did not exceed the
- 2 -
statutory maximum and was reasonable given his outburst in the
courtroom, during which he directed obscenities at the judge.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s judgment. 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 such 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 -