Court Opinion

ID: 994824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:28:38.09347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:53:54.570304
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                  No. 97-4245

GEORGE F. FENDERSON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.
(CR-93-19-H)

Submitted: February 27, 1998

Decided: April 29, 1998

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert J. McAfee, CHARLES K. MCCOTTER, JR., ATTORNEYS
AT LAW, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKen-
zie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

George F. Fenderson, Jr., appeals from the district court's order
revoking supervised release and imposing a twenty-four month prison
term. Specifically, Fenderson claims that the district court failed to
recognize the advisory nature of the policy statements of Chapter 7
of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1995) when imposing his
sentence. We find no merit to Fenderson's claim. Consequently, we
affirm.

After pleading guilty to conspiracy to receive and possess stolen
money orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994), the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina sen-
tenced Fenderson to twenty-one months in prison, followed by three
years of supervised release. While he was serving his term of super-
vised release, Fenderson was charged with violating the conditions of
supervised release in several ways, including receiving two drug traf-
ficking convictions.

Fenderson admitted to all the violations of supervised release. Pur-
suant to the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the United States Sen-
tencing Guidelines, Fenderson's guideline range was twenty-four
months, see USSG § 7B1.4, p.s., which also was the statutory maxi-
mum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (1994). The court sentenced him to
twenty-four months in prison.

The policy statements on the revocation of supervised release
found in Chapter 7 are not binding on the courts, but rather are advi-
sory in nature. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir.
1995). During the supervised release revocation hearing, defense
counsel specifically reminded the court of the advisory nature of the
policy statements and the court did not dispute this fact. The court
expressed dismay at Fenderson's repeated violations while he was on

                    2
supervised release and commented on his inability to follow the law.
It is clear from the sentencing transcript that the judge knew that the
policy statements were advisory, but chose to impose the maximum
sentence based on Fenderson's particular record.

For these reasons, we affirm Fenderson's sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3