UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4475
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TITO LEMONT KNOX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:06-cr-00269-HMH-1)
Submitted: October 2, 2009 Decided: November 6, 2009
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tito Lemont Knox appeals the district court’s order
revoking his conditional discharge pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 4243(g) (2006). Knox’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but
stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal. Counsel questions whether the district court erred in
remanding Knox to a treatment facility because he posed a
substantial risk of danger to others as a result of his mental
disorder. Knox has filed pro se supplemental informal briefs. ∗
We affirm.
After a hearing, the district court found that Knox
“violated the conditions of his release by failing to
participate in psychiatric treatment . . . and refusing to take
psychotropic medication” as ordered by the court. United
States v. Knox, No. 6:06-cr-00269-HMH-1 (D.S.C. May 12, 2009,
at 3). The court also concluded “that Knox’s continued release
would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another
person or serious damage to property of another.” (Id.). Our
thorough review of the record leads us to conclude that the
∗
We have reviewed carefully the issues raised in the pro se
supplemental informal briefs. Knox’s claim that he did not
violate his conditional discharge by using marijuana is belied
by the record, and we decline to review the district court’s
denial of Knox’s motion to suppress evidence in this appeal.
2
district court did not err in revoking Knox’s conditional
discharge.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district
court. We deny Knox’s motions for discovery, for sanctions, and
for release. This court requires that counsel inform his
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