Case ID: f-appx_125/html/0501-01.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. Bernard KNIGHT, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-4940.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 28, 2005.
    Decided April 5, 2005.
    Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Lisa A. Broccoletti, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Joseph McNulty, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Bernard Knight appeals the district court’s order imposing a thirty-six month term of imprisonment and a twenty-four month term of imprisonment, to be served concurrently, upon revocation of his supervised release. Knight’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, but suggesting the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Knight. Although informed of his right to do so, Knight has not filed a supplemental brief.

We review a district court’s order imposing a sentence after revocation of supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995). Moreover, because Knight’s sentence does not exceed the maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000), we review the sentence to determine only whether it is plainly unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) (2000). Upon review of the record, we conclude Knight’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable.

In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Knight’s sentence. This court requires counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes 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 the client.

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