UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5110
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JESSIE SHORT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CR-01-561)
Submitted: December 4, 2006 Decided: January 3, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jessica Salvini, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jessie L. Short appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four
months’ imprisonment. Short’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that there
were no meritorious issues on appeal, but raising two issues on
Short’s behalf. Short has filed a pro se supplemental brief
raising several issues.
Counsel contends that the district court erred in using
the preponderance of the evidence standard to determine whether a
violation of supervised release occurred. Short adds to this
argument, challenging the preponderance of the evidence standard
and asserting that he should have been tried in state court first
on the criminal charges underlying his supervised release
violation. We reject these contentions, as the preponderance of
the evidence standard was correctly applied and the supervised
release violation hearing was completely separate and distinct from
any state proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3), 3606 (2000).
Counsel also asserts that the district court erred in
sentencing Short to a twenty-four month term. Given that the term
was within the applicable statutory maximum and the recommended
guideline range, and because it was neither procedurally nor
substantively unreasonable, we find that it was not plainly
- 2 -
unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th
Cir. 2006).
Short also sets forth a claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel. Because our review of the record does not conclusively
demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, this claim may not
be raised on direct appeal. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d
290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Short next advances a vague challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence, stating that he was not guilty.
Our review discloses that the evidence was in fact sufficient to
support the Grade A violation. Finally, we reject Short’s
assertion that he should have been granted bail pending appeal.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s order revoking Short’s supervised
release and imposing a twenty-four month sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform her 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
- 3 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -