US v. Nicholas Cooper, No. 13-4742 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4742 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NICHOLAS ANTONIO COOPER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00328-JAB-1) Submitted: April 18, 2014 Decided: April 24, 2014 Before KING, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William S. Trivette, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nicholas Antonio Cooper appeals the eight-month sentence of imprisonment imposed by the district court after revocation of his supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Cooper s sentence is plainly unreasonable. Although notified of his right to do so, Cooper has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm. A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release. v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). United States We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. Id. (quoting United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006)). In making this determination, we first consider whether the sentence imposed is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Id. Only if we so find, will we . . . then decide whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 439. Here, the district court correctly calculated Cooper s advisory policy statement range and considered the 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a) (2012) revocation of factors supervised applicable release. The to sentencing district court adequately explained the basis for Cooper s sentence. 2 upon also Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Cooper. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This We court requires that counsel inform Cooper, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme review. If Cooper Court believes that counsel may in representation. the requests counsel move of such this that a United a petition petition court for States be would leave for to further filed, be but frivolous, withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Cooper. 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 3
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.
