UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4169 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDWARD GREER, JR., a/k/a Parris Anthony

Ravenell,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (2:99-cr-01096-PMD)

Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 29, 2006

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jill E. M. HaLevi, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan Scott Gasser, Assistant

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Alston Calhoun

Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Edward Greer, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to the statutory

maximum of sixty months of imprisonment. Greer’s counsel has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967),

stating that there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal,

but arguing that the district court violated Greer’s due process

rights in considering evidence not contained in the violation

report and that the court erred in sentencing Greer to the

statutory maximum. Although informed of his right to do so, Greer

has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.

Greer first alleges that the district court violated his

due process rights in considering for sentencing purposes charges

that were not contained in the violation report. As this claim was

not preserved in the district court, we review for plain error.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-

32 (1993). We have reviewed the hearing transcript and find no

indication that the court considered such charges in determining

Greer’s sentence. We therefore find no plain error. 

Greer also argues that the court erred in sentencing him

above the Chapter 7 advisory policy statement range to the

statutory maximum. We recently held in United States v. Crudup,

 F.3d , 2006 WL 2243586 (4th Cir. Aug. 7, 2006), that we

review sentences imposed upon the revocation of supervised release
- 3 -

to determine whether the sentence is “plainly unreasonable.” In

this case, Greer’s sentence was within the applicable statutory

maximum, the court considered the Chapter 7 advisory guideline

range of thirty-seven to forty-six months, and the court stated a

proper basis for its conclusion that Greer be sentenced to the

maximum statutory sentence. See Crudup, 2006 WL 2243586, at *5.

Specifically, the court noted that Greer received a substantial

downward departure in his original sentence. Because Greer’s

sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable,

we find that his sentence is not plainly unreasonable. 

As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record

and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm the district court’s order revoking Greer’s supervised

release and imposing a sixty-month sentence. This court requires

that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If the client 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 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