USCA4 Appeal: 24-4212 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/12/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4212

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEVIN CLARK MOORE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00163-WO-1)

Submitted: November 15, 2024 Decided: December 12, 2024

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lindsey Ann Freeman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-4212 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/12/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

In 2010, Kevin Moore pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery, in violation of

(a), and the district court sentenced him to 151 months’ imprisonment

followed by three years of supervised release. In 2021, the district court revoked Moore’s

supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment followed by another

year of supervised release. In 2024, the district court again revoked Moore’s supervised

release and sentenced him to 21 months’ imprisonment with no period of supervision to

follow. Moore appeals from the second revocation judgment. On appeal, counsel has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), conceding that there are no

meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in revoking

Moore’s supervised release instead of continuing him on supervision to go to drug

treatment. Moore was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not

do so. We affirm.

We review a district court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release for

abuse of discretion. United States v. Dennison,

(4th Cir. 2019). A

district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release if it “finds by a preponderance

of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.”

(e)(3). Moreover, if a defendant possesses a controlled substance in violation of the

conditions of his supervised release or tests positive for illegal substances on more than

three occasions within a one-year period, “the court shall revoke the term of supervised

release and require the defendant to serve a term of imprisonment.”

(g)(1), (4). Here, Moore admitted to violating the terms of his supervised release,

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4212 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/12/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

including possessing controlled substances and testing positive for controlled substances

on seven occasions in the course of a year. Therefore, the district court was required to

revoke Moore’s supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment. See

(g)(1), (4). Thus, we discern no error in the judgment.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s

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

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

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 Moore.

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