UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4786

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC CONYERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:07-cr-0057-FDW-1)

Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold M. Vaught, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy 

Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Conyers appeals the district court’s judgment 

revoking his supervised release and imposing an 11-month term of 

imprisonment. Conyers’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts 

that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions

the validity of Conyers’ sentence because the original 

indictment failed to specify a drug quantity. Although advised 

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Conyers has 

not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

Conyers pled guilty in 1994 to possession with intent 

to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006) and was 

sentenced to 151 months imprisonment, followed by five years of 

supervised release. Conyers’ term of supervised release 

originally began in 2005; however, his supervised release was 

revoked in 2007 and he was sentenced to 37 months imprisonment. 

Conyers again began a term of supervised release in December 

2009. 

Conyers’ supervised release was revoked a second time, 

based on admitted violations of the terms of his supervision, 

and he was sentenced to 11 months imprisonment. On appeal, 

Conyers argues that, because the underlying indictment failed to 

specify a drug quantity, the term of incarceration the district 

court imposed exceeds the maximum of two years’ imprisonment 
3

authorized for violations of a term of supervised release 

imposed as punishment for a Class C felony. See Apprendi v. New 

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Conyers raised the same argument 

in his prior appeal challenging the first revocation of 

supervised release. Again, we reject this claim. See United 

States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting 

that “when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision 

should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages 

in the same case”). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Conyers’ sentence. This court requires that 

counsel inform Conyers, in writing, of his right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

Conyers requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 

that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in 

this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s 

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Conyers. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED