UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4041
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BRYANT KEITH HORTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:99-cr-00170)
Submitted: May 25, 2007 Decided: June 26, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Gretchen L.
Taylor, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant. Darryl James Mitchell, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bryant Keith Horton appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to eighteen
months of imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are
no meritorious issues for appeal but suggesting that the sentence
is plainly unreasonable because it is longer than necessary to
punish adequately Horton’s violation of the conditions of his
supervised release. Horton was advised of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We affirm.
Counsel suggests that Horton’s sentence is plainly
unreasonable because the violations were technical in nature. We
note that, while the sentence Horton received is four months above
the advisory sentencing guideline range of eight to fourteen
months, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a) (2006), it
is within the applicable statutory maximum sentence. Moreover, our
review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court
sufficiently considered the statutory factors and explained its
reasons for imposing a sentence above the advisory guideline range.
We therefore find that the sentence imposed upon revocation of
supervised release is not plainly unreasonable. See United
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing
standard), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007).
- 2 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s order revoking
Horton’s supervised release and imposing an eighteen-month
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform the client, in
writing, of the 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 -