United States v. Bobby Labo ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4196
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BOBBY EDWARD LABO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District
Judge. (7:12-cr-00302-TMC-1)
Submitted: October 29, 2013 Decided: November 8, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joel Morris Bondurant, Jr., BONDURANT LAW FIRM, Atlanta,
Georgia, for Appellant. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Edward Labo pled guilty to possession of a
firearm with an obliterated serial number, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(k), 924(a)(1)(B) (2006). The district court
sentenced Labo to the statutory maximum sentence of sixty months
in prison. On appeal, counsel for Labo filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Labo did not file a
supplemental pro se brief, despite notice of his right to do so.
The government elected not to file a response to the Anders
brief.
In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have
examined the entire record ∗ and have found no meritorious issues.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny
counsel’s request to be relieved from further representation.
This court requires that counsel inform Labo in writing of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Labo requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from
∗
The sentencing hearing was transcribed, but that
transcript was not made a part of the record on appeal. We have
satisfied our obligations under Anders, however, by reviewing
the transcript via the district court docket sheet.
2
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Labo. 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