UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4862

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MICHAEL W. EVERS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, 

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00044-LHT-DLH-1) 

Submitted: February 12, 2009 Decided: March 13, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dennis Gibson, LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS GIBSON, Asheville, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States 

Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Michael W. Evers appeals from the district court’s 

judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence 

of six months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel filed a brief 

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

there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Evers was notified 

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do 

so. Finding no error, we affirm. 

 We find that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in revoking Evers’ supervised release. See United 

States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992) (providing 

standard of review). The district court need only find a 

violation of a condition of supervised release by a 

preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 

2000 & Supp. 2008). Based on Evers’ admission of his violation 

of the terms of supervised release, we conclude the district 

court’s decision to revoke supervised release was not an abuse 

of discretion. 

 A sentence imposed after revocation of supervised 

release will be affirmed if it is within the applicable 

statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United 

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). We 

must initially determine the reasonableness of the revocation 

sentence by generally following the procedural and substantive 

2 
considerations employed in a review of original sentences, “with 

some necessary modifications to take into account the unique 

nature of supervised release revocation sentences.” Id. at 438-

39. If the revocation sentence is not unreasonable, it will be 

affirmed; however, if the sentence is in some manner 

procedurally or substantively unreasonable, there must be a 

determination of whether it is plainly so. Id. at 439. 

 During the revocation hearing, the district court had 

available for its consideration the supervised release violation 

worksheet which noted the three-to-nine-month advisory 

imprisonment range provided under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual § 7B1.4(a) (2007). While the court did not specifically 

reference 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) when announcing its 

sentence, see United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th 

Cir. 2006) (stating district court need not explicitly address 

each § 3553(a) factor or refer to the statute); see also Rita v. 

United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), we find that the sentence 

imposed was within the advisory range and below the statutory 

maximum, and was not plainly unreasonable. See Crudup, 461 F.3d 

at 439. 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

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

3 
4 

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 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