United States of America v. Kenneth Roosevelt Dewalt

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4661
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KENNETH ROOSEVELT DEWALT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-00-81)
Submitted: December 21, 2005 Decided: January 18, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Roosevelt Dewalt appeals his sixteen-month
sentence, imposed after the district court revoked his supervised
release. Dewalt’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there were no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issue of whether
the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable.
Although Dewalt was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, he did not do so.
Prior to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
reviewed the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release
and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse of discretion. See,
e.g., United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995).
However, Booker raised questions as to what standard of review is
now appropriate — abuse of discretion or reasonableness. Though we
have not yet resolved which standard of review is appropriate, we
conclude Dewalt’s sentence should be affirmed under either
standard.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. 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

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
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 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

-- 3 of 3 --