United States v. Clark

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4834

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

MICHAEL DEWAYNE CLARK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:92-cr-00417-GRA-1)

Submitted: February 1, 2011 Decided: March 10, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Corley
Lucius, David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Michael Dewayne Clark, who is currently a North

Carolina prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion to rescind the arrest warrant for his violation of

supervised release and to terminate the balance of his

supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether

the delay in executing the warrant violates Clark’s right to due

process under the Fifth Amendment and his right to a speedy

trial under the Sixth Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act. Clark

has filed a pro se supplemental brief asserting that the

Government has waived jurisdiction in this case by turning him

over to state custody. Clark also contends that his term of

supervised release has expired.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record

in this case and counsel’s and Clark’s contentions on appeal.

We find the claims raised to be without merit and have found no

other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s order denying relief. United States v. Clark,

No. 7:92-cr-00417-GRA-1 (D.S.C. July 21, 2010). This court

requires that counsel inform Clark in writing of the right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If Clark requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel

2
may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Clark. Finally, 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