Scribd
Upload
25 views3 pages

United States v. Moore, 4th Cir. (2006)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of Aubrey Moore's supervised release and sentence of 11 months imprisonment. Moore admitted to violating the terms of his supervised release. The court considered the relevant factors and found Moore's numerous violations justified the 11-month sentence, which was within the advisory guideline range. While Moore argued his sentence was improperly based on hearsay, the court found his speculation insufficient given its explanation of reasons for the sentence.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
25 views3 pages

United States v. Moore, 4th Cir. (2006)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of Aubrey Moore's supervised release and sentence of 11 months imprisonment. Moore admitted to violating the terms of his supervised release. The court considered the relevant factors and found Moore's numerous violations justified the 11-month sentence, which was within the advisory guideline range. While Moore argued his sentence was improperly based on hearsay, the court found his speculation insufficient given its explanation of reasons for the sentence.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4577

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AUBREY T. MOORE, III,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (1:01-cr-00007-IMK)

Submitted: November 15, 2006

Decided:

November 20, 2006

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

L. Richard Walker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg,


West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Edward Johnston, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia; Zelda
Elizabeth Wesley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg,
West Virginia; Paul Thomas Camilletti, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:
Aubrey T. Moore, III, appeals from the district courts
order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to eleven
months

imprisonment

after

he

admitted

to

violations

of

his

supervised release. Moores attorney has filed a brief pursuant to


Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), representing that, in
his

view,

there

are

no

meritorious

issues

challenging the length of Moores sentence.

for

appeal,

but

Moore has filed a pro

se supplemental brief, asserting that his sentence was based on


hearsay.

Finding no meritorious issues and no error by the

district court, we affirm the revocation order and the sentence


imposed.
In light of Moores admission that he violated the terms
of his supervision, we find no error by the district court in
revoking his supervised release.

See 18 U.S.C.A. 3583(e)(3)

(West Supp. 2006); United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th
Cir. 1995).

Moore challenges the length of the sentence imposed.

Before imposing sentence, the court considered the relevant factors


and noted that Moores non-compliance with his supervised release
terms and his numerous violations justified a sentence of eleven
months.

The eleven-month term of incarceration imposed by the

district

court

was

within

the

five-to-eleven-month

guideline range and was not plainly unreasonable.


States v. Crudup,

advisory

See United

461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006); United

- 2 -

States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126
S. Ct. 2309 (2006); 18 U.S.C.A. 3583(e)(3); U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual 7B1.4(a).

Although Moore contends that his

sentence was enhanced based on hearsay statements that he was a


drug dealer, Moore corrected the courts misstatement, and, in
light of the courts explanation of its reasons for the sentence,
Moores speculation is insufficient to show that the sentence was
unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have independently reviewed
the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order revoking Moores
supervised release and imposing an eleven-month sentence and a
twenty-five-month supervised release term.

This court requires

that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his 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.
Counsels 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