UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4600

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

LANCE EMANUEL BROWN, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Chief 

District Judge. (1:00-cr-00263-JAB-1; 1:00-cr-00365-JAB-1) 

Submitted: January 29, 2009 Decided: February 12, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. 

Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States 

Attorney, Angela H. Miller, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United 

States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Lance Emanuel Brown appeals the district court’s 

judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence 

of five months in prison and thirty-one months of supervised 

release. On appeal, Brown’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his 

opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising 

the issue of whether the district court erred in denying Brown’s 

motion to dismiss the petition regarding revocation of 

supervised release, because his revocation hearing was not held 

within a reasonable time under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2). 

Brown was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental 

brief, but he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. 

After absconding from supervision, Brown was arrested 

in Florida on January 28, 2008. On January 30, 2008, Brown 

appeared before a magistrate judge in Florida who ordered him 

returned to the Middle District of North Carolina. He arrived 

in the district around February 14, 2008, and after appointment 

of counsel, he signed a waiver of preliminary hearing and 

detention hearing on February 23, 2008. On February 25, 2008, 

the magistrate judge accepted Brown’s waiver and ordered that 

the revocation hearing be noticed by the clerk. On April 24, 

2008, the clerk notified the parties that the hearing would be 

held on May 5, 2008, which was seventy days after the magistrate 

2 
judge accepted Brown’s waiver of a probable cause hearing. On 

May 1, 2008, Brown moved to dismiss the petition regarding 

revocation of supervised release, contending that the district 

court failed to hold the revocation hearing within a reasonable 

time as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2). At the hearing 

on May 5, 2008, Brown admitted the violations alleged in the 

petition. The district court denied Brown’s motion to dismiss 

the petition, revoked his supervised release, and sentenced him 

within both his advisory guideline range and statutory limits. 

On appeal, Brown’s attorney concedes he is unable to 

point to facts supporting a ruling that Brown’s hearing was not 

held within a reasonable time. Moreover, because Brown admitted 

the violations, and the three months he spent in custody prior 

to the hearing were credited against his five-month prison 

sentence, he concedes he cannot contest the district court’s 

finding that he suffered no prejudice. We conclude that the 

district court held the revocation hearing within a reasonable 

time as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2), and the court 

did not err in denying Brown’s motion to dismiss the petition. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, 

of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States 

3 
4 

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