UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4025
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WARREN LEWIS ALEXANDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-97-173)
Submitted: September 13, 2006 Decided: October 12, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles H. Harp, II, HEDRICK, HARP & MICHAEL, Lexington, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Kearns Davis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Following a hearing at which Warren Lewis Alexander
admitted to violating conditions of his supervised release, the
district court revoked Alexander’s release and imposed a thirty-
six-month sentence. Alexander appeals. His attorney has filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 367 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.
Alexander was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but did not file such a brief. We affirm.
As required by Anders, we have carefully reviewed the
entire record in this case and have found no errors. We note that,
while the sentence was substantially above the advisory guideline
range of six to twelve months, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 7B1.4(a) (1997), it was within the applicable statutory
maximum of sixty months. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2000).
Further, while the district court explicitly recognized the
advisory guideline range, the court determined that a much longer
sentence was in order because of Alexander’s history of repeatedly
violating the terms of supervision and the need to set an example
in an attempt to deter other supervisees from violating release
terms. These are permissible considerations when imposing a
supervised release revocation sentence. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2006); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2000). Moreover,
Alexander does not contend that the court failed to consider any
- 2 -
pertinent § 3553(a) factors. We conclude that the sentence imposed
upon revocation of supervised release was not plainly unreasonable.
See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438-40 (4th Cir. 2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires counsel to 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 this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a
copy of the motion was served on the client. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set
forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -