US v. Michael Evers, No. 08-4862 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4862 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL W. EVERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00044-LHT-DLH-1) Submitted: February 12, 2009 Decided: March 13, 2009 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Gibson, LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS GIBSON, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael W. Evers appeals from the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence of six months imprisonment. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Evers was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so. Finding no error, we affirm. We find that the district court did not abuse its See United discretion in revoking Evers supervised release. States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992) (providing standard of violation review). of a The district condition of preponderance of the evidence. 2000 & Supp. 2008). court need supervised only release find a by a 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Based on Evers admission of his violation of the terms of supervised release, we conclude the district court s decision to revoke supervised release was not an abuse of discretion. A release statutory sentence will be maximum imposed affirmed and is after if it not revocation is plainly within of supervised the applicable unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). We must initially determine the reasonableness of the revocation sentence by generally following the procedural and substantive 2 considerations employed in a review of original sentences, with some necessary modifications to take into account the unique nature of supervised release revocation sentences. 39. Id. at 438- If the revocation sentence is not unreasonable, it will be affirmed; however, procedurally or if the sentence substantively is unreasonable, determination of whether it is plainly so. in some there manner must be a Id. at 439. During the revocation hearing, the district court had available for its consideration the supervised release violation worksheet which imprisonment range noted provided Manual § 7B1.4(a) (2007). reference 18 the U.S.C. three-to-nine-month under U.S. Sentencing advisory Guidelines While the court did not specifically § 3553(a) (2006) when announcing its sentence, see United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating district court need not explicitly address each § 3553(a) factor or refer to the statute); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), we find that the sentence imposed was within the advisory range and below the statutory maximum, and was not plainly unreasonable. See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district This court requires that counsel inform his client, in 3 writing, of his right to petition United States for further review. the Supreme Court of the If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move 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 contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
