United States v. Battle

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Battle

38 F. App'x 987

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 2002

Docket01-4810

StatusUnpublished

This text of 38 F. App'x 987 (United States v. Battle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Battle, 38 F. App'x 987 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Danny Allison Battle pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West 2000). He was sentenced to 96 months imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. Battle noted a timely appeal and his counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), addressing whether the district court adequately ascertained that Battle had read and discussed with his attorney the presentence report prior to sentencing, as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(A), but stating that in his opinion there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Battle has not done so. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Before imposing sentence, a district court must verify that the defendant and defendant’s counsel have read and discussed the presentence report. United States v. Miller, 849 F.2d 896, 897 (4th Cir.1988). A district court is not always required to expressly ask whether the report has been read and discussed; instead, a statement by counsel or the defendant may demonstrate that the report has been read and discussed by them. United States v. McManus, 23 F.3d 878, 884-85 (4th Cir.1994). We find that the record establishes that Battle had read the pre-sentence report and had discussed it with his attorney prior to sentencing. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court complied with Rule 32(c)(A)(3).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the Unit *988 ed 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. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Danny Allison Battle pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West 2000). He was sentenced to 96 months imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. Battle noted a timely appeal and his counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), addressing whether the district court adequately ascertained that Battle had read and discussed with his attorney the presentence report prior to sentencing, as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(A), but stating that in his opinion there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Battle has not done so. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Before imposing sentence, a district court must verify that the defendant and defendant’s counsel have read and discussed the presentence report. United States v. Miller, 849 F.2d 896, 897 (4th Cir.1988). A district court is not always required to expressly ask whether the report has been read and discussed; instead, a statement by counsel or the defendant may demonstrate that the report has been read and discussed by them. United States v. McManus, 23 F.3d 878, 884-85 (4th Cir.1994). We find that the record establishes that Battle had read the pre-sentence report and had discussed it with his attorney prior to sentencing. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court complied with Rule 32(c)(A)(3).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the Unit *988 ed 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. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 F. App'x 987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-battle-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack