Filed: Feb. 28, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4643 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD E. NELSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:01-cr-00969-CWH) Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: February 28, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Meetze,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4643 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD E. NELSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:01-cr-00969-CWH) Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: February 28, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Meetze, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4643
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALD E. NELSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (4:01-cr-00969-CWH)
Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: February 28, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William Earl Day, II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald E. Nelson appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his probation and imposing a nine-month sentence of
imprisonment. On appeal, counsel for Nelson has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that
there are no meritorious claims for review but raising two issues:
(1) whether the district court abused its discretion in finding
that Nelson violated his probation; and (2) whether the nine-month
sentence imposed was plainly unreasonable. Nelson, having been
informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, has not
done so.
Nelson’s first issue, that the district court abused its
discretion in finding that he violated his probation, is clearly
without merit. “[T]he sentencing court retains broad discretion to
revoke a defendant’s probation and impose a term of imprisonment up
to the statutory maximum.” United States v. Moulden,
478 F.3d 652,
657 (4th Cir. 2007). Nelson conceded the probation violations at
a hearing before the district court and therefore, he cannot
successfully claim that the court erred in finding these violations
and revoking his probation.
Second, Nelson raises the issue of whether the sentence
imposed by the district court was plainly unreasonable. We review
a sentence imposed upon revocation of probation to determine
whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable.
Id. at 656. In
- 2 -
doing so, we first assess whether the sentence is unreasonable,
using a more deferential standard as to issues of fact and the
district court’s exercise of discretion than that applied in
reviewing a guidelines sentence.
Id. If we find the sentence
unreasonable, we then decide whether it is plainly so.
Id.
We conclude that the nine-month sentence imposed by the
district court is not unreasonable. The district court
appropriately calculated the advisory Guidelines range and
considered it and other relevant factors under the Guidelines and
18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). See United States
v. Moreland,
437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct.
2054 (2006). Nelson’s sentence, which is within the applicable
Guidelines range and the statutory maximum, is therefore
reasonable. United States v. Johnson,
445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir.
2006) (“[A] sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable.”); see Rita v. United States,
127 S. Ct.
2456 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness of sentence
within properly calculated sentencing guidelines range).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s decision to revoke Nelson’s
probation and the nine-month sentence imposed. This court requires
that counsel inform Nelson, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
- 3 -
Nelson 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. Counsel’s motion
must state that a copy thereof was served on Nelson.
We affirm the district court’s revocation of Nelson’s
probation and the sentence subsequently imposed. 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
- 4 -