United States of America v. Roscoe Howard Small, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4269
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROSCOE HOWARD SMALL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:00-cr-00331-NCT-1)
Submitted: October 30, 2015 Decided: November 6, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. JoAnna Gibson McFadden, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Roscoe Howard Small, Jr., appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to
24 months’ imprisonment. Small’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning
whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting
hearsay evidence during Small’s revocation hearing. Small was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
has not filed one. We affirm.
At the revocation hearing, Small’s counsel objected to a
police officer’s testimony describing the statement of an
anonymous caller. The district court, however, made clear that
it considered this testimony merely for context and not for the
truth of the caller’s statement. The statement was thus not
hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2). Small’s counsel also
objected to the district court’s consideration of the officer’s
testimony about a second officer’s out-of-court statement. On
examination by the court, the witness officer clarified that the
basis for his testimony was his own personal knowledge, not the
second officer’s statement. We therefore conclude that the
district court did not err in overruling both objections, for
the officer’s testimony did not contain inadmissible hearsay.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Small, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Small 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 Small.
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 of 3 --