Court Opinion

ID: 9396878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:31.188201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.352615
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4044      Doc: 21         Filed: 05/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4044

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JABRAIL ADRIAN WOFFORD,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:18-cr-00028-HMH-1)

        Submitted: April 24, 2023                                         Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Emily Deck Harrill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B.
        Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4044         Doc: 21      Filed: 05/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jabrail Adrian Wofford appeals the district court’s order granting a postjudgment

        motion. Defense counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

        (1967), questioning whether the district court erred in its evaluation of the motion. The

        Government has declined to file a response brief, and Wofford has not filed a pro se

        supplemental brief, despite being advised of his right to do so.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no

        meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s amended

        judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Wofford, in writing, of the right to

        petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Wofford 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 Wofford.

               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

                                                     2