Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04928/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04928-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corey Anthony Beach
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4928

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

COREY ANTHONY BEACH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (2:09-cr-01226-PMD-1)

Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: May 1, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4928 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/01/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Corey Anthony Beach appeals the district court’s judgment 

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 11 months’ 

imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no 

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Beach’s 

revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable. Beach was advised 

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not 

done so. 

In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the 

record in this case and conclude that Beach’s sentence is not 

plainly unreasonable and that there are no meritorious grounds 

for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

See United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013) 

(“We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the 

statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)). This court requires that counsel 

inform Beach, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme 

Court of the United States for further review. If Beach 

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 Beach. 

Appeal: 14-4928 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/01/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 14-4928 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/01/2015 Pg: 3 of 3