UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4924

JOSEPH MORIARITY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

James C. Fox, Senior District Judge.

(CR-01-118)

Submitted: July 26, 2002

Decided: August 8, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce, Research and

Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Joseph Moriarity pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire

fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000) in the Western District

of Pennsylvania. He was sentenced to twenty-four months probation

in May 2001. The district court subsequently transferred jurisdiction

to the Eastern District of North Carolina and expressly consented to

that district’s ability to change Moriarity’s period of probation or

supervised release. While on probation, Moriarity failed to abide by

the conditions of the community corrections center in which he was

housed, and failed to abstain from the use of alcohol. The district

court revoked Moriarity’s probation and sentenced Moriarity to

twelve months imprisonment to be followed by a thirty-six month

term of supervised release. 

Moriarity’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing whether the district court abused its

discretion by sentencing Moriarity to twelve months imprisonment,

but stating that in his opinion there were no meritorious issues. Moriarity has submitted a pro se supplemental brief addressing the same

issue. 

Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4 (2000), Moriarity’s guidelines range was six to twelve months. Moreover, he was

subject to a maximum term of supervised release of thirty-six months.

18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2) (2000). Finding no abuse of discretion in the

sentence, we affirm. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th

Cir. 1995) (providing standard of review). 

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and

find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

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

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

2 UNITED STATES v. MORIARITY
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

UNITED STATES v. MORIARITY 3