UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4345
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ZEE ZEE ZELAZURRO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-4346
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ZEE ZEE ZELAZURRO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00561-MBS-1)
Submitted: October 30, 2014 Decided: November 7, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Zee Zee Zelazurro appeals from the revocation of his
supervised release and the resulting twelve-month sentence of
imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
Zelazurro’s sentence is plainly unreasonable. Although notified
of his right to do so, Zelazurro has not filed a supplemental
brief. We affirm.
“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a
sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United
States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We will
affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory
maximum and is not “‘plainly unreasonable.’” Id. (quoting
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)).
“In making this determination, we first consider whether the
sentence imposed is procedurally or substantively unreasonable.”
Id. Only if we so find will “we . . . then decide whether the
sentence is plainly unreasonable.” Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439.
After a careful review of the record, we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Zelazurro. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment
3
revoking Zelazurro’s supervised release and imposing sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Zelazurro, in writing,
of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If Zelazurro 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 Zelazurro. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4