Case ID: f-appx_266/html/0246-01.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. Johnnie Mae BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-4816.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 21, 2008.
    Decided: Feb. 25, 2008.
    Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Michael Hamilton, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Johnnie Mae Brooks appeals her three-month sentence imposed upon revocation of her probation. On appeal, Brooks’ attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), certifying there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggesting the court erred in the length of the sentence imposed. Although advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Brooks has not done so. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.

This court will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of probation if it is within the applicable statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir.2007) (citing United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1813, 167 L.Ed.2d 325 (2007)). Brooks’ three-month sentence was within the advisory policy statement range of three to nine months and well below the statutory maximum of twenty-four months. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000). Brooks’ sentence is not plainly unreasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in wilting, 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.