Court Opinion

ID: 989915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:14:10.546521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:14.940248
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                   No. 96-4054
KENNETH EDWARD FRANKS, a/k/a Ken
Franks,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City.
Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.
(CR-90-221)

Submitted: July 23, 1996

Decided: August 2, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Donald N. Patten, BROWN, QUEEN & PATTEN, P.A., Waynesville,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States
Attorney, William Boyum, Assistant United States Attorney, Ashe-
ville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Edward Franks appeals the revocation of his supervised
release term and imposition by the district court of a term of impris-
onment comporting with 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e) (West Supp. 1996),
and the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Franks's attorney has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal,
but raising three issues: (1) that the district court erred in allowing the
introduction of hearsay evidence at the revocation hearing; (2) that the
district judge violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 by allowing Franks's attor-
ney to admit to Franks's violations of his supervised release terms;
and (3) that the statutory provision allowing admission of a violation
of supervised release absent a full, knowing, and intelligent waiver of
the right to a hearing violates the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. Franks was notified of his right to file an addi-
tional brief, which he failed to do.

In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have examined
the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We find
that the district court properly revoked Franks's term of supervised
release based on his admitted violations of the conditions of such
release. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 1996); United
States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). Moreover, Franks
received all the substantive and procedural rights due him, and the
revocation hearing comported with the mandates of the Federal Rules
of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Morrissey
v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972). Finally, we find that the sentence
imposed by the district judge was proper under the law. See 18
U.S.C.A. § 3583(e).

This Court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

                     2
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