UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES ANTHONY CLARK,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-5149

(N.D. Oklahoma)

(D.C. No. 4:14-CR-00032-JHP-1)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

 

Defendant James Clark appeals from a judgment of the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, which revoked his supervised release and 

 

*

 After examining the brief and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously 

to honor the party’s request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without 

oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, 

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 

32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

September 22, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-5149 Document: 01019494610 Date Filed: 09/22/2015 Page: 1 
2 

imposed a 10-month term of imprisonment followed by a 26-month term of supervised 

release. After reviewing the record and finding no issues that could support an appeal, 

Defendant’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw as counsel. 

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (defense attorney who concludes after 

conscientious examination that an appeal would be “wholly frivolous” may “so advise the 

court and request permission to withdraw”); United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 

930 (10th Cir. 2005); 10th Cir. R. 46.4(B)(1). Defendant and the government had the 

opportunity to respond to counsel’s filings but did not do so. Our jurisdiction arises 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). Based on our own “full examination of 

all the proceedings,” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, we agree with counsel that there are no 

nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We therefore dismiss this appeal and grant counsel’s 

motion to withdraw. 

Defendant had been convicted of possession with intent to distribute 100 

kilograms or more of marijuana and sentenced to 18 months in prison and four years of 

supervised release. In April 2014, Defendant’s probation officer filed an Order on 

Supervised Release alleging that Defendant had violated several release conditions, 

including by failing to provide urine specimens for drug testing on numerous occasions 

and by testing positive for amphetamines in December 2013. On April 29 Defendant was 

released to enter into inpatient drug treatment. 

Defendant was unsuccessfully discharged from the drug-treatment program on 

August 28, 2014, for violating program rules and testing positive for amphetamines. In 

Appellate Case: 14-5149 Document: 01019494610 Date Filed: 09/22/2015 Page: 2 
3 

September 2014 the probation officer filed a Superseding Order on Supervised Release 

alleging violations of supervised-release conditions occurring before and after Defendant 

entered the program. The Superseding Order attached a document that notified 

Defendant of the test result and advised that use of prohibited substances constituted a 

violation of his release conditions and that he had a right to a hearing to determine 

whether he had violated his release conditions. Defendant signed this document, attesting 

that he had read and understood the notice and was aware of his rights, and checked a box 

next to the statement, “I admit to illegal use of a prohibited controlled substance as 

indicated by the above-reported urine test result.” R., Vol. I at 32. 

When Defendant appeared before the district court on November 21, 2014, his 

counsel stated that Defendant had been advised of his right to a hearing on the 

Superseding Order and that it was “his desire to waive his right to that hearing and to 

stipulate to the allegations that are made therein.” Id., Vol. II at 8. The court confirmed 

with Defendant that he wished to waive the hearing, and that he understood the rights he 

would be giving up if he did. When asked again if he wanted to waive the hearing, 

Defendant replied, “Yes, sir. I think this is probably wasting enough of your time.” Id. at 

10. He also indicated his understanding that the court could revoke his supervised release 

and could impose a sentence in accordance with the imprisonment range of 8 to 14 

months recommended in USSG §	7B1.4 or a sentence of up to 36 months’ imprisonment 

on Defendant’s original offense under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). 

Appellate Case: 14-5149 Document: 01019494610 Date Filed: 09/22/2015 Page: 3 
4 

After reconfirming that Defendant wished to waive an evidentiary hearing, the 

court stated that it found by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant had violated 

his supervised-release conditions and recited the numerous violations alleged by the 

probation officer. The court did not ask Defendant to affirm that he stipulated to the 

probation officer’s allegations. But Defendant addressed the court without contesting his 

counsel’s representation at the outset of the hearing that he wished to stipulate to the 

allegations, and without advising the court that he disputed any allegation. The court 

revoked Defendant’s supervised release and imposed a sentence of 10 months’ 

imprisonment with a 26-month term of supervised release. Defendant timely appealed. 

The Anders brief notes the following as rendering Defendant’s appeal wholly 

frivolous: (1) Defendant stipulated through counsel to the Superseding Order’s 

allegations that he violated numerous supervised-release conditions, and personally 

waived his right to an evidentiary hearing with an understanding of what the hearing 

entailed. (2) There was no arguable error in the district court’s acceptance of the 

stipulation and waiver or its revocation decision. (3) The sentence is within the correctly 

calculated range recommended by the applicable guidelines policy provisions and so is 

presumed to be reasonable, and no claim overcomes that presumption. After conducting 

a full review of the record, we agree with counsel that there are no nonfrivolous grounds 

for appeal. 

Appellate Case: 14-5149 Document: 01019494610 Date Filed: 09/22/2015 Page: 4 
5 

We DISMISS the appeal and GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

 Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-5149 Document: 01019494610 Date Filed: 09/22/2015 Page: 5