UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5098
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LEWIS MURDOCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-02-225)
Submitted: June 21, 2006 Decided: July 7, 2006
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L.
Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lewis Murdock appeals the revocation of his supervised
release and resulting twelve-month prison term. Finding no error,
we affirm.
Counsel for Murdock has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but presents for this
court’s review the issue of the propriety of Murdock’s prison
sentence. Although notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, Murdock has not done so.
Murdock admitted the substance of the conduct that
violated the terms of his supervised release, so there was an
adequate basis for revocation. The court considered the statutory
maximum, the advisory guideline range, and Murdock’s history of
violations, and imposed a sentence of twelve months, at the top of
the advisory range. We have reviewed the record and the parties’
briefs and find no reversible error in Murdock’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the revocation of Murdock’s supervised
release and the resulting term of imprisonment. This court
requires that counsel inform Murdock, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Murdock requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
- 2 -
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 Murdock.
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 -