UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4786
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC CONYERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:07-cr-0057-FDW-1)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold M. Vaught, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Conyers appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and imposing an 11-month term of
imprisonment. Conyers’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions
the validity of Conyers’ sentence because the original
indictment failed to specify a drug quantity. Although advised
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Conyers has
not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
Conyers pled guilty in 1994 to possession with intent
to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006) and was
sentenced to 151 months imprisonment, followed by five years of
supervised release. Conyers’ term of supervised release
originally began in 2005; however, his supervised release was
revoked in 2007 and he was sentenced to 37 months imprisonment.
Conyers again began a term of supervised release in December
2009.
Conyers’ supervised release was revoked a second time,
based on admitted violations of the terms of his supervision,
and he was sentenced to 11 months imprisonment. On appeal,
Conyers argues that, because the underlying indictment failed to
specify a drug quantity, the term of incarceration the district
court imposed exceeds the maximum of two years’ imprisonment
2
authorized for violations of a term of supervised release
imposed as punishment for a Class C felony. See Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Conyers raised the same argument
in his prior appeal challenging the first revocation of
supervised release. Again, we reject this claim. See United
States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting
that “when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision
should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages
in the same case”).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Conyers’ sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform Conyers, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Conyers requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Conyers. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3