United States of America v. Dana Sander

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4559
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANA SANDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:03-cr-00142-CCE-2)
Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: May 31, 2016
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Stephen Thomas Inman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dana Sander appeals from her 15-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of her supervised release. Sander’s counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues, but
noting that Sander objected below to the classification of one
of her supervised release violations, possession of cocaine, as
a Grade B violation. The Government declined to file a brief.
Sander did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no
error, we affirm.
Sander originally received a 210-month sentence with a
5-year term of supervised release. After a series of
reductions, Sander’s sentence became 124 months. The United
States Probation Office filed a petition for revocation of
Sander’s supervised release on July 13, 2015. At the revocation
hearing, Sander admitted the violations alleged in the petition,
but argued that the possession of cocaine violation should be
classified as a Grade C violation instead of a Grade B violation
because the alleged offense was not a felony. Sander contended
that, because the Justice Reinvestment Act of 2011, 2011 N.C.
Sess. Laws 192 (JRA), on the North Carolina Structured
Sentencing Act, would require her placement on supervision for
the applicable offense before she had been imprisoned for one
year, the offense was not a felony. Since Sander’s revocation

-- 2 of 3 --

3
hearing, we have decided a case that definitively rejects her
argument. See United States v. Barlow, 811 F.3d 133, 140 (4th
Cir. 2015) (“state law renders post-release supervision part of
the term of imprisonment” so that “in every case, North Carolina
law now exposes felons to terms of imprisonment exceeding one
year”), petition for cert. filed, No. 15-8925 (U.S. Apr. 8,
2016).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Sander’s revocation of supervised
release and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
Sander, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If Sander 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 Sander.
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 --