Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0425-01.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. Raymond C. ASBERRY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-4075
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 28, 2016
    Decided: August 1, 2016
    Lora Blanchard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Raymond C. Asberry appeals the fourteen-month sentence imposed by the district court upon revocation of Asberry’s supervised release. On appeal, Asberry’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court adequately explained Asberry’s revocation sentence. Although notified of his right to do so, Asberry has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Our review of the record reveals no error in the district court’s explanation of Asberry’s sentence. See United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s revocation judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Asberry, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Asberry 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 Asberry. 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