Court Opinion

ID: 994698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:26:45.699225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:15.118858
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                No. 97-4643

MICHAEL DAVID REED,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CR-96-59-F)

Submitted: February 17, 1998

Decided: April 17, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, OFFICE OF THE 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Michael David Reed appeals the district court's order revoking his
probation and sentencing him to twelve months imprisonment. Coun-
sel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting that the sentence was plainly unreasonable given the
mitigating circumstances and the district court's failure to consider
the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553 (West 1985 &
Supp. 1997). Reed was notified of his right to file an additional brief
but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

Reed pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to larceny of per-
sonal property, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 661 (West Supp. 1997).
He was placed on probation for five years. Within two months, his
probation officer moved to revoke probation on the grounds that Reed
failed to report weekly to the probation office as directed and had
absconded supervision. Reed admitted the offenses, but argued that
extenuating family circumstances justified them.

The district court has broad discretion to revoke probation if a con-
dition of probation has been violated. United States v. Cates, 402 F.2d
473, 474 (4th Cir. 1968). Evidence of a probation violation must "rea-
sonably satisfy" the court that the defendant violated the terms of pro-
bation. United States v. Holland, 874 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (11th Cir.
1989). We review a finding of a probation violation for abuse of dis-
cretion. Id. at 1473.

Reed admitted the factual violations of the conditions of his proba-
tion. The district court imposed a sentence within the original guide-
line range of six to twelve months. This court gives due deference to
the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts. 18
U.S.C.A. § 3742(e) (West Supp. 1997). The record shows that the dis-
trict court was aware of the nature and circumstances of the offense

                    2
and of Reed's circumstances. He had already given Reed an opportu-
nity to serve his sentence without incarceration while living with his
family and working in the community. Therefore, the district court
adequately considered the factors of § 3553, and the sentence was not
in error.

In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have examined
the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. 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. If the
client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such
a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may again move in this
court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion
must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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