Court Opinion

ID: 991847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:42:44.17318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:26.385062
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 96-4830

FITZ MAURICE BELL, a/k/a Peedee,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem.
Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-92-239)

Submitted: March 13, 1997

Decided: March 24, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William E. Martin, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Michael F.
Joseph, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Fitz Maurice Bell was sentenced to six months in prison following
a hearing to revoke his term of supervised release. Bell's counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging whether the district court abused its discretion by revok-
ing the term of supervised release and whether the sentence is plainly
unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.

Bell was originally convicted of drug-related charges. While serv-
ing a term of supervised release, Bell's urine tested positive for mor-
phine and marijuana, he failed to report to the probation officer, to
submit monthly reports, and to pay his fine, and he committed at least
one traffic offense. At the revocation hearing, Bell admitted to the
offenses. The district court applied the non-binding Guidelines found
in USSG § 7B1.4,1 and Bell did not object to the sentencing range of
three to nine months.

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by revok-
ing Bell's term of supervised release. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)
(1994), the district court was required to revoke the release if Bell
possessed drugs, and Bell's admission to using drugs established
possession.2 We further find that the sentence imposed was not
"plainly unreasonable."3

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with
the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
The court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
_________________________________________________________________
1 United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.
1995).
2 See United States v. Battle, 993 F.2d 49, 50 (4th Cir. 1993).
3 See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) (1994).

                     2
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.
Counsel's current motion before this court to withdraw is denied.

We affirm the district court's judgment order. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3