Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Koshon Irvin MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-26
Citations: 218 F. App'x 243
Docket Number: No. 06-4254
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Koshon Irvin MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 243–244

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Koshon Irvin MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-4254.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 26, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 26, 2007.
Capers G. Barr, III, Barr, Unger & McIntosh, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin Frank McDonald, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Koshon Irvin Mitchell pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit access device fraud and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000). The district court sentenced Mitchell to fifteen months' imprisonment and ordered him to pay $5783.18 in restitution.
The government subsequently filed a motion to reduce Mitchell's sentence, pur suant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b), based on Mitchell's substantial assistance in a murder investigation. The district court granted the motion and entered an amended criminal judgment, sentencing Mitchell to time served, but leaving all other conditions from the original judgment undisturbed. Mitchell appealed.
Mitchell's counsel 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, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but challenging the restitution order. Mitchell was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not file one.
Mitchell filed no objections in the district court to the restitution order. Therefore, Mitchell's challenge to the restitution order is subject to plain error review. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). We find that the district court did not plainly err in making the restitution determination.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the amended criminal judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Mitchell, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Mitchell 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 Mitchell. 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.
Mitchell voluntarily withdrew his appeal from the original criminal judgment pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).