United States v. Jackson , 234 F. App'x 168 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4164
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAMION DAMONE JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00083)
Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 27, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emily Marroquin, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Brian Steven Cromwell,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Damion Damone Jackson appeals from the district court’s
order revoking his supervised release and imposing a twelve-month
and one-day term of imprisonment.* Counsel has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are
no meritorious claims on appeal but raising one issue: whether the
sentence is plainly unreasonable. Jackson was informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We find that Jackson’s sentence, imposed within his
properly-calculated advisory sentencing range, is not plainly
unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th
Cir. 2006) (providing review standard), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct.
1813 (2007); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000); U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual, § 7B1.4(a), p.s. (2006) (revocation table).
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious
issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires
that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
*
The court also sentenced him to two years of supervised
release thereafter.
- 2 -
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 -