UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4971
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRELL BARNES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00211-JAB-1)
Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: May 6, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Anand
P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Barnes appeals from the revocation of his
supervised release and the imposition of an eight-month prison
term to be followed by a fifty-two-month term of supervised
release. Barnes’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there
were no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the length
of the supervised release term. Although informed of his right
to do so, Barnes has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We
affirm.
When a court revokes supervised release and imposes a
term of imprisonment, it may also reimpose a term of supervised
release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) (2006). “The length of such a
term of supervised release shall not exceed the term of
supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that
resulted in the original term of supervised release, less any
term of imprisonment that was imposed upon revocation of
supervised release.” Id. Thus, when the district court revoked
Barnes’ supervised release and imposed an active prison term of
eight months, it had the authority to impose up to fifty-two
months of supervised release (sixty month statutory maximum
based upon Barnes’ underlying convictions minus eight months).
See United States v. Maxwell, 285 F.3d 336, 342 (4th Cir. 2002).
2
In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire
record in this case and found no meritorious issues for review.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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