United States v. Reedom , 115 F. App'x 129 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4637
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HAROLD K. REEDOM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CR-01-861)
Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 14, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Hunter Young, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Harold K. Reedom appeals from his conviction and sentence
following his guilty plea to willful failure to pay a child support
obligation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228 (2000). Reedom’s
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 744 (1967) stating that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, but asserting that the magistrate judge did not comply with
the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 at the plea hearing and
that the sentence imposed was in violation of the law. Reedom was
informed of his right to file a pro se brief, but has not done so.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We, therefore, affirm Reedom’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his 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 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
- 2 -