Court Opinion

ID: 990810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:27:28.591818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:26:22.880832
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 96-4033

RUFUS SAMUEL GREENE, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.
(CR-90-108)

Submitted: November 7, 1996

Decided: November 21, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, C. Cooper Fulton, Assis-
tant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appel-
lant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Stephanie D. Thacker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Rufus Samuel Greene appeals the revocation of his supervised
release and the twenty-four month sentence he thereafter received.
Greene's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no merito-
rious grounds for appeal but raising two issues: (1) whether Greene's
supervised release should have been revoked rather than placing him
on home detention with electronic monitoring; and (2) whether it was
error for the district court to sentence Greene outside the sentencing
range recommended in a policy statement of the United States Sen-
tencing Guidelines ("Guidelines").* Greene was notified of his right
to file an additional brief, but failed to do so.

We find no support for the proposition that the district court erred
by revoking Greene's supervised release and sentencing him to
twenty-four months of incarceration, under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3)
(West Supp. 1996), rather than modifying his release and placing him
on home detention with electronic monitoring under§ 3583(e)(4).
The Guidelines provide that a court may revoke supervised release
upon a finding of a Grade C violation. USSG § 7B1.3, p.s. Greene
admitted committing a Grade C violation of his supervised release.
The guideline range provided in Chapter Seven is eight to fourteen
months for a Grade C violation and a Criminal History Category of
VI. USSG § 7B1.4, p.s. Because the policy statements on which
Greene relies are not binding on the courts, United States v. Davis, 53
F.3d 638, 649 (4th Cir. 1995), and because he was sentenced within
the statutory range, we find no error in the district court's sentence of
twenty-four months.
_________________________________________________________________

*See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual,
USSG § 7B1.4, p.s. (Nov. 1995).

                    2
As required by Anders, we have independently reviewed the record
and all pertinent documents. We have considered all possible issues
presented, and we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous grounds for
appeal. Because the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm
Greene's sentence.

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. Coun-
sel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3