Case ID: f-appx_234/html/0149-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      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. Burton Arnold COKER, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-5255.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 13, 2007.
    Decided: July 25, 2007.
    Janna D. Allison, Waynesville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Burton Arnold Coker appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to eight months’ imprisonment. Coker’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggesting that the district court erred by revoking and sentencing Coker based on supervised release violations. Coker has been informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.

Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Coker admitted to violations of his supervised release, and we find his sentence was reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that such 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.