United States v. Jordan

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Jordan

63 F. App'x 765

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 2003

Docket03-4091

StatusUnpublished

This text of 63 F. App'x 765 (United States v. Jordan) 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. Jordan, 63 F. App'x 765 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Dorian Jordan appeals his twelve-month sentence imposed by the district court following his violation of the terms of his supervised release. In a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Jordan’s attorney challenges the length of Jordan’s revocation sentence. Jordan was apprised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal, including the nature and extent of Jordan’s violations of his supervised release and the transcript of the revocation hearing. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Jordan’s supervised release based on his admissions at the revocation hearing. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995). Because the district court was presented with and explicitly considered the suggested sentencing range of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4 (2002), and the statutory maximum sentence of 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2000), we find no error in Jordan’s sentence. Id. at 642-43.

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Jordan’s sentence. Further, 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. 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Dorian Jordan appeals his twelve-month sentence imposed by the district court following his violation of the terms of his supervised release. In a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Jordan’s attorney challenges the length of Jordan’s revocation sentence. Jordan was apprised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal, including the nature and extent of Jordan’s violations of his supervised release and the transcript of the revocation hearing. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Jordan’s supervised release based on his admissions at the revocation hearing. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995). Because the district court was presented with and explicitly considered the suggested sentencing range of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4 (2002), and the statutory maximum sentence of 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2000), we find no error in Jordan’s sentence. Id. at 642-43.

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Jordan’s sentence. Further, 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. 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)

63 F. App'x 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jordan-ca4-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack