USCA4 Appeal: 22-4267 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/09/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4267

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERRY LAMONT HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cr-00252-TDS-1)

Submitted: November 3, 2022 Decided: December 9, 2022

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4267 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/09/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Lamont Harris appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised

release and sentencing him to 18 months’ imprisonment, followed by 36 months of

supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning

whether the district court erred by deferring consideration of one of Harris’ alleged

supervised release violations (“Violation 1”) after the Government elected not to pursue it

in light of pending state charges. The Government has not filed a response. Although

informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Harris has not done so. We affirm.

“It is well-established that a revocation does not end a term of supervised release.”

United States v. Harris,

(4th Cir. 2017); see Johnson v. United States,

(2000). “After revocation, the defendant continues to serve his term

of supervised release, but does so in prison.” Harris,

. Thus, the district

court’s jurisdiction over supervised release continues past revocation. United States v.

Winfield,

(4th Cir. 2012). “[A] district court is within its authority to

hold bifurcated violation hearings based on a petition filed before the supervised release’s

expiration so long as it sentences the violator pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure, makes a finding of guilt by a preponderance of the evidence, and does not

exceed the statutory maximum for re-incarceration.”

Because the district court retains

jurisdiction over Harris’ supervised release until its termination, the court did not err in

deferring consideration of Violation 1.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4267 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/09/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and have

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

revocation judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Harris, in writing, of the right

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Harris 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 Harris.

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