UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4411

KENNETH O. LEWIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-99-126)

Submitted: December 29, 2000

Decided: January 24, 2001

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

Christopher L. Anderson, GOODMAN, WEST & FILETTI, P.L.L.C.,

Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert E. Trono, Assistant

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Kenneth O. Lewis appeals the district court’s order revoking his

supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four months’ imprisonment. Lewis’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), representing that, in his view, there are

no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising one issue of whether the

district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence greater than

the term of imprisonment for the original offense. Lewis has been

notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not

done so. The Government elected not to file a responding brief. Finding that the issue raised by counsel is without merit and discerning no

other error in the record below, we affirm. 

This court reviews for abuse of discretion the district court’s order

imposing a sentence after revocation of supervised release. United

States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). The district court

abuses its discretion when it fails or refuses to exercise its discretion

or when its exercise of discretion is flawed by an erroneous legal or

factual premise. James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993).

The district court may revoke a defendant’s term of supervised release

if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated the

terms of release. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000). Lewis admitted to the two violations of supervised release stated in the Petition

on Supervised Release when he pled guilty. There is nothing in the

record to support a finding that Lewis’ guilty plea was not knowing

and voluntary, nor does he make this allegation. 

Under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3), the district court may revoke a

term of supervised release, and require the defendant to serve in

prison all or part of the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in imposition of the term of supervised release without granting credit for time previously served on

post-release supervision. Therefore the district court did not abuse its

discretion because it imposed a sentence authorized by the revocation

statute. 

As required by Anders, we have independently reviewed the entire

record and all pertinent documents. We have considered all possible

2 UNITED STATES v. LEWIS
issues presented by this record and concluded that there are no nonfrivolous grounds for this appeal. Pursuant to the plan adopted by the

Fourth Circuit Judicial Council in implementation of the Criminal

Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (1994), this court requires

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

Supreme Court for further review. If requested by his client to do so,

counsel should prepare a timely petition for writ of certiorari. 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

UNITED STATES v. LEWIS 3