United States v. Shaquan Godfrey

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 24-4469
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4469 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4469

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHAQUAN JAMARIO GODFREY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:21-cr-00009-TDS-1)

Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 2, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Craig M. Cooley, COOLEY LAW OFFICE, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. Eric Lloyd Iverson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4469 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Shaquan Jamario Godfrey appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his term

of supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months’ imprisonment followed by 12

months’ supervised release. On appeal, Godfrey’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds

for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in revoking Godfrey’s supervised

release. Godfrey was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not

done so. The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.

We review “a district court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release for

abuse of discretion,” its underlying factual findings for clear error, and unpreserved

challenges for plain error. United States v. Dennison, 925 F.3d 185, 190 (4th Cir. 2019).

A district court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a

preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). After reviewing the record and

counsel’s brief, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking

Godfrey’s supervised release. Godfrey admitted to violating his supervised release by

testing positive for marijuana, failing to report to his supervising probation officer for a

scheduled appointment, being in the company of a gang member, and leaving the judicial

district where he was authorized to reside without permission. The Government also

presented testimony at the revocation hearing that the district court credited establishing

that Godfrey engaged in felony conspiracy to commit robbery violating North Carolina

law. Based on Godfrey’s new criminal conduct and admission to four other violations of

supervised release, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s revocation of

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4469 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

Godfrey’s supervised release. See id.; U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(a)(1),

p.s. (2023) (“Upon a finding of a Grade A or B violation, the court shall

revoke . . . supervised release.”).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This Court requires that counsel inform Godfrey, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Godfrey 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 Godfrey.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED