UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4834
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
3