United States of America v. Rodriguez Clintonian Grier

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4598
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODRIGUEZ CLINTONIAN GRIER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:99-cr-00161-MOC-1)
Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wallace H. Jordan, Jr., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Rodriguez Clintonian Grier appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing
him to 12 months’ imprisonment. 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 erred in finding that Grier had
violated the terms of his supervised release. Although advised
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Grier has not
done so. The Government has declined to file a response brief.
Following our review of the record, we affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s
judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a term of
imprisonment. United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th
Cir. 1999); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir.
1992). The 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) (2012); Copley, 978 F.2d at
831. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear
error. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 372–73 (4th Cir.
2015).
We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in
finding that Grier violated the terms of his supervised release.
Despite Grier’s suggestion to the contrary, it is clear from the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
record that Grier was under an order of supervision at the time
he committed the violations alleged in this, his fifth
revocation petition. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its
discretion by revoking Grier’s supervised release and ordering a
term of imprisonment.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Grier, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Grier
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 Grier. 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 --