UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4026
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHATAN MAULTSBY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-00-50)
Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: July 31, 2006
Before MOTZ, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Chatan Maultsby appeals from the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four
months of imprisonment. Maultsby’s attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), representing
that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
raising the issue of whether the district court erred in imposing
Maultsby’s sentence. Although he was advised of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief, Maultsby has not done so. Finding no
meritorious issues and no error by the district court, we affirm
the revocation order and the sentence imposed.
In light of Maultsby’s admission that he violated the
terms of his supervision, we find no error by the district court in
revoking his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2005); United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638,
642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). Maultsby challenges the length of the
sentence and supervised release term. The twenty-four-month term
of incarceration imposed by the district court was within the
advisory guideline range and was reasonable. See United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2006) (No. 05-4270); 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 7B1.4(a). The twenty-four month term of supervised
release imposed following the revocation sentence was within the
- 2 -
statutory maximum and was not “plainly unreasonable.” 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3583(b), (h); 3742(a)(4) (2000).
In accordance with Anders, we have independently reviewed
the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order revoking
Maultsby’s supervised release and imposing a twenty-four-month
sentence. 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 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 -