UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5241
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CLYDE LEWIS MORRIS, JR., a/k/a Smokey,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (3:00-cr-00025-WCB)
Submitted: April 16, 2007 Decided: May 14, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Richard Walker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States
Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clyde Lewis Morris, Jr. appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
eleven months’ imprisonment, the high end of the advisory
guidelines’ range of imprisonment. Morris’ counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending
there exist no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether the district court erred by considering incidents not noted
by the probation officer as violations of supervised release.
Morris was notified of the opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief but chose not to do so. We affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range
and not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461
F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006). In making this determination, we
first consider whether the sentence is procedurally or
substantively unreasonable, and if so, whether it is “plainly” so.
Id. While the district court must consider the Chapter 7 policy
statements and statutory requirements and factors applicable to
revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583 (2000), the
district court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke the
previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the
statutory maximum.
- 2 -
We find no error in the district court’s decision to
discuss incidents at sentencing that did not put Morris in a
favorable light. The court stated it would not sentence Morris
based on information not known to counsel prior to sentencing. In
any event, the sentence was reasonable. Morris had nine violations
to his supervised release. Some of the violations included
committing crimes.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Morris’ sentence. 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 a
petition be filed, but counsel believes 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 -