Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ladarcus Omar NESBITT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-21
Citations: 254 F. App'x 991
Docket Number: No. 07-4649
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ladarcus Omar NESBITT, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 254
Pages: 991–992

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ladarcus Omar NESBITT, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-4649.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2007.
Decided: Nov. 21, 2007.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ladarcus Omar Nesbitt appeals the district court's order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to six months' imprisonment. Nesbitt'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 supervised release and sentencing Nesbitt based on supervised release violations. Nesbitt 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. Nesbitt admitted to violations of his supervised release, and his sentence was reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform his 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.