UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4577
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AUBREY T. MOORE, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (1:01-cr-00007-IMK)
Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Richard Walker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Edward Johnston, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia; Zelda
Elizabeth Wesley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg,
West Virginia; Paul Thomas Camilletti, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Aubrey T. Moore, III, appeals from the district court’s
order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to eleven
months imprisonment after he admitted to violations of his
supervised release. Moore’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
challenging the length of Moore’s sentence. Moore has filed a pro
se supplemental brief, asserting that his sentence was based on
hearsay. Finding no meritorious issues and no error by the
district court, we affirm the revocation order and the sentence
imposed.
In light of Moore’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 Supp. 2006); United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th
Cir. 1995). Moore challenges the length of the sentence imposed.
Before imposing sentence, the court considered the relevant factors
and noted that Moore’s non-compliance with his supervised release
terms and his numerous violations justified a sentence of eleven
months. The eleven-month term of incarceration imposed by the
district court was within the five-to-eleven-month advisory
guideline range and was not plainly unreasonable. See United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006); United
- 2 -
States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126
S. Ct. 2309 (2006); 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3); U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a). Although Moore contends that his
sentence was enhanced based on hearsay statements that he was a
drug dealer, Moore corrected the court’s misstatement, and, in
light of the court’s explanation of its reasons for the sentence,
Moore’s speculation is insufficient to show that the sentence was
unreasonable.
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 Moore’s
supervised release and imposing an eleven-month sentence and a
twenty-five-month supervised release term. 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 -