United States v. William Johnson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 14, 2025
• Docket: 24-4456
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4456 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4456

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM WAYNE JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:01-cr-00053-WO-1)

Submitted: August 7, 2025 Decided: August 14, 2025

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Ira Knight, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lindsey Ann Freeman, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4456 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

William Wayne Johnson appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his term of

supervised release and imposing a sentence of 37 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,

Johnson’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although Johnson was notified of

his right to do so, he has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has

declined to file a response brief.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal. Johnson admitted six violations of

supervised release, and his revocation sentence was adequately explained and within the

properly calculated policy statement range. We therefore affirm the district court’s

revocation judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Johnson, in writing, of the right to petition

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Johnson 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 Johnson.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED