United States v. Reid

256 F. App'x 620
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Reid. Read the opinion of the Court — 523 F.3d 310
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 4, 2007·No. 07-4494·Unpublished

Opinion

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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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 *621 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 wilting, 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Reid, 256 F. App'x 620 (4th Cir. 2007).

256 F. App'x 620 (United States v. Reid) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)