UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4542
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WESLEY KENT DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00222)
Submitted: January 7, 2008 Decided: January 15, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas A. Will, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS A. WILL, JR., Gastonia,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wesley Kent Davis appeals his ten-month sentence imposed
upon revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Davis’s
attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, but suggesting the court may have abused its discretion by
revoking supervised release instead of exercising its options to
continue supervised release or modifying its conditions. Although
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Davis has
not done so. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
A decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d
638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). When the court determines that the
defendant has violated conditions of supervised release, the court
can either continue supervised release, with or without extending
the term or modifying or enlarging the conditions, or revoke
supervised release in favor of incarceration. See 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3583(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 7B1.3(a)(2). Because Davis admitted to committing the
alleged violations of the conditions of his supervised release, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking it.
This court will affirm a sentence imposed after
revocation of supervised release if it is within the applicable
statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United
- 2 -
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006), cert.
denied, 127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007). Davis’s ten-month sentence was
within the advisory policy statement range of eight to fourteen
months and well below the statutory maximum of twenty-four months.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We conclude that Davis’s sentence is
not plainly unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we
affirm the revocation of Davis’s supervised release and his
sentence. 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 -