Court Opinion

ID: 1001918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:02:54.159468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:01.710944
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                               No. 00-4018
TIMOTHY LYNN ODOM, a/k/a Timothy
Lynn Odum,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                               No. 00-4028
TIMOTHY LYNN ODOM, a/k/a Timothy
Lynn Odum,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
William L. Osteen, District Judge.
(CR-99-270, CR-92-177)

Submitted: June 15, 2000

Decided: June 28, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Sandra Jane
Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Caro-
lina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Timothy L. Odom appeals the district court's revocation of his con-
current terms of supervised release and the resulting consecutive sen-
tences based on his two previous convictions. Odom's attorney has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting that jurisdiction over one term of supervised release
was improperly transferred, that revocation of both terms of super-
vised release was error, and that imposition of consecutive sentences
was clearly unreasonable. Odom did not file a supplemental pro se
brief. In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have exam-
ined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

We first find that jurisdiction over Odom's supervised release was
properly transferred despite his lack of knowledge concerning the
transfer. See 18 U.S.C. § 3605 (1994); United States v. Ohler, 22 F.3d
857, 858-59 (9th Cir. 1994). We next find that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in revoking Odom's concurrent terms of
supervised release based on his admitted violations. See United States
v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). Finally, we find that the
district court was well within its discretion to impose consecutive sen-
tences based on Odom's admitted violations, as it adopted the factual
findings of the probation officer, considered the applicable guidelines

                    2
provisions, and stated that consecutive sentences would allow Odom
the needed time to obtain appropriate counseling. See United States
v. Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 119 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court's judgments.

We deny counsel's motion to withdraw at this juncture. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to peti-
tion the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. How-
ever, if the client requests that such 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