UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4080

ANTHONY LEON SCOTT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson.

Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-98-854)

Submitted: June 25, 2002

Decided: July 11, 2002

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,

South Carolina, for Appellant. William Corley Lucius, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Anthony Leon Scott appeals the district court’s revocation of his

supervised release and corresponding twenty-four month term of

imprisonment. Scott’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues presented in this appeal, but raising questions as to

whether sufficient evidence existed to establish by a preponderance

of the evidence that Scott violated the terms of his supervised release

and whether the court erred in imposing Scott’s twenty-four month

sentence. Scott was notified by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief and has elected to do so. His contentions center around

the same insufficiency of the evidence claim raised by counsel. 

We review a district court’s revocation of supervised release for

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43

(4th Cir. 1995). The district court need only find a violation of a condition of the supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence.

See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 1994 & Supp. 2001); Johnson v.

United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700 (2000). 

Upon careful review, we conclude the district court possessed

ample evidence to find by a preponderance of the evidence that Scott

committed one Grade B violation of the conditions of his supervised

release and two Grade C violations. The court also correctly sentenced Scott within the guideline sentencing range for a Grade B violation. To the extent Scott’s informal supplemental brief raises

different facts or contentions regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, we reject them as meritless. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and the sentence it imposed. 

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with

the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in 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 in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Coun2 UNITED STATES v. SCOTT
sel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

Finally, 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. SCOTT 3