Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0313-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Rochelle CORNELIUS, a/k/a Michael Robert Cornelius, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 11-5219.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 26, 2012.
    Decided: May 3, 2012.
    Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stanley Duane Rags-dale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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 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 a petition be filed, but would be frivolous, then 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.