Case ID: f-appx_353/html/0795-01.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. Tracie WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-4204.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 19, 2009.
    Decided: Dec. 1, 2009.
    Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
    Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tracie Williams was convicted of conspiracy to pass and utter counterfeit postal money orders and was sentenced to five years of probation. Thereafter, Williams pled guilty to three probation violations, and the district court did not alter her sentence other than to require her to spend three months in a halfway house. Williams timely appealed, and counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the new condition of community confinement was unreasonable.

Williams was sentenced below her advisory Guidelines range of three to nine months in prison. Moreover, the district court noted its specific reasons for (1) imposing the community confinement condition (namely, Williams’ repeated probation violations), and (2) declining to impose a prison term (namely, Williams’ family circumstances and her attempts to find work). We find that Williams’ sentence was not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir.2006) (providing review standard for revocation of supervised release).

Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of her 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.