UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5219
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL ROCHELLE CORNELIUS, a/k/a Michael Robert Cornelius,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (3:06-cr-01071-MBS-1)
Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 3, 2012
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Stanley Duane Ragsdale,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Rochelle Cornelius appeals from the district
court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a
twenty-month prison term and a one-year term of supervised
release. On appeal, Cornelius’ counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking
Cornelius’ supervised release. Although informed of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, Cornelius has not done so.
The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.
We review the district court’s revocation of
supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). The district court
need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release
by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3)
(West 2006 & Supp. 2011). We review for clear error factual
determinations underlying the conclusion that a violation
occurred. United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019
(8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Whalen, 82 F.3d 528, 532
(1st Cir. 1996). After reviewing the record, we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
Cornelius’ supervised release because a preponderance of the
evidence supports the court’s finding that Cornelius violated
2
the terms of his supervised release by engaging in the criminal
offense of indecent exposure while on release.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Cornelius, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Cornelius 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 Cornelius.
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