United States v. Reid , 256 F. App'x 620 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4494
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMMIE C. REID,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:04-cr-01009-HMH)
Submitted: November 6, 2007 Decided: December 4, 2007
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William Corley Lucius, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jammie C. Reid appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised probation and sentencing him to nine
months’ imprisonment. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no
non-frivolous grounds for appeal but questioning whether the
sentence imposed was reasonable. Reid was advised of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Reid’s
sentence is within the advisory guidelines range and well below the
statutory maximum sentence, and thus the district court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing a nine-month term of imprisonment.
The district court’s revocation proceedings otherwise comport with
due process. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2000). Finding no error, we
affirm the judgment of the district court.
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
- 2 -
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 -