Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0243-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Antonio J. SIMMONS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 11-5090.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 27, 2012.
    Decided: May 10, 2012.
    Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Antonio J. Simmons pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced Simmons to eighty-four months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. On appeal, Simmons’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 886 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which she states that she can find no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel seeks our review of the district court’s compliance with Fed. R.Crim.P. 11 and the reasonableness of Simmons’ sentence. Finding no reversible error on either of those fronts, or other meritorious issue elsewhere in the record, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

This Court requires that counsel inform Simmons, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Simmons 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 Simmons.

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.