United States v. Williams , 353 F. App'x 795 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4204
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRACIE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:04-cr-00848-PMD-4)
Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 1, 2009
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Rhett
DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tracie Williams was convicted of conspiracy to pass
and utter counterfeit postal money orders and was sentenced to
five years of probation. Thereafter, Williams pled guilty to
three probation violations, and the district court did not alter
her sentence other than to require her to spend three months in
a halfway house. Williams timely appealed, and counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, but questioning whether the new condition of community
confinement was unreasonable.
Williams was sentenced below her advisory Guidelines
range of three to nine months in prison. Moreover, the district
court noted its specific reasons for (1) imposing the community
confinement condition (namely, Williams’ repeated probation
violations), and (2) declining to impose a prison term (namely,
Williams’ family circumstances and her attempts to find work).
We find that Williams’ sentence was not plainly unreasonable.
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006)
(providing review standard for revocation of supervised
release).
Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires that
counsel inform her client, in writing, of her right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
2
the client 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3