Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    United States v. Brown, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Michael Brown appealed the district court's revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a 2-year prison sentence for admitting two violations. 2) The district court considered the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and rejected the 6-12 month guideline range as insufficient to provide treatment for Brown's drug addiction. 3) The appeals court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court's revocation and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Brown, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    17 views3 pages
    1) Michael Brown appealed the district court's revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a 2-year prison sentence for admitting two violations. 2) The district court considered the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and rejected the 6-12 month guideline range as insufficient to provide treatment for Brown's drug addiction. 3) The appeals court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court's revocation and sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-03-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-4503

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Michael Brown appealed the district court's revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a 2-year prison sentence for admitting two violations. 2) The district court considered the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and rejected the 6-12 month guideline range as insufficient to provide treatment for Brown's drug addiction. 3) The appeals court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court's revocation and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    17 views3 pages

    United States v. Brown, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Michael Brown appealed the district court's revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a 2-year prison sentence for admitting two violations. 2) The district court considered the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and rejected the 6-12 month guideline range as insufficient to provide treatment for Brown's drug addiction. 3) The appeals court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court's revocation and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.

    No. 98-4503

    MICHAEL ARTHUR BROWN,


    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
    (CR-95-870)
    Submitted: February 26, 1999
    Decided: March 30, 1999
    Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Allen B. Burnside, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
    South Carolina, for Appellant. Eric William Ruschky, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Arthur Brown appeals the district court's order revoking
    his term of supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment.
    After Brown admitted two violations of the conditions of his supervised release, the district court sentenced Brown to two years in
    prison. Brown noted a timely appeal and his attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), in which he
    represents that there are no arguable issues of merit in this appeal.
    Nonetheless, in his brief, counsel addressed whether the district court
    properly sentenced Brown outside of the range recommended by the
    policy statement contained in the United States Sentencing Guidelines
    7B1.4 (Nov. 1995). The time for filing a supplemental brief has
    passed and Brown has not responded despite being advised of his
    right to do so. Finding no abuse of discretion on the part of the district
    court, we affirm.
    This court reviews the district court's order imposing a term of
    imprisonment for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Davis,
    53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). An abuse of the district court's
    discretion occurs when the court either fails or refuses to exercise its
    discretion or when the court's exercise of discretion is flawed by an
    erroneous legal or factual premise. See James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d
    233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993). Brown contends that the district court failed
    to give adequate consideration to the factors of 18 U.S.C. 3553
    (1994), specified by 18 U.S.C. 3583 (1994), as appropriate for consideration in the revocation of a term of supervised release.
    Our review of the record reveals no abuse of discretion. The transcript of the revocation hearing reflects that the district court was
    aware of the six to twelve month sentence recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines policy statement, see 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(5), but
    rejected that term as insufficient to provide Brown with appropriate
    treatment for his long-standing drug addiction. See 18 U.S.C.
    3553(a)(2)(D). This thoughtful review by the district court is not
    evidence of an abuse of discretion. As a result, we find no cause to
    disturb the court's revocation of supervised release or the two-year
    sentence the district court imposed.
    2

    As required by Anders, we have independently reviewed the entire


    record and all pertinent documents. We have considered all possible
    issues presented by this record and conclude that there are no nonfrivolous grounds for this appeal. Pursuant to the plan adopted by the
    Fourth Circuit Judicial Council in implementation of the Criminal
    Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. 3006A (1994), this court requires
    that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
    Supreme Court for further review. If requested by the client to do so,
    counsel should prepare a timely petition for writ of certiorari, unless
    counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous. In that case,
    counsel may 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 adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3

    You might also like