US v. Lillie Barber

Filing 920090205

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4901

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. LILLIE A. BARBER, Defendant ­ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00320-MBS-2)

Submitted:

January 23, 2009

Decided:

February 5, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Hunter Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Lillie defraud (2006), the and A. Barber States, sentenced was in to convicted violation sixty of of 18 conspiring U.S.C. of § to 371

United was

months

probation.

Thereafter, Barber pled guilty to three probation violations and the district court did not alter her sentence other than to require her to spend four months in the a halfway house. of her

Nonetheless,

Barber

again

violated

conditions

probation and pled guilty to three new violations. This time the district court sentenced her to six months of incarceration. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following issue: whether the district court erred by sentencing Barber within the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range without giving adequate factors. consideration to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)

For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We first note that Barber was sentenced in the middle

of her advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of three to nine months. Thus, we do not find her resulting sentence is plainly United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. of 1813 (2007) (providing In

unreasonable. Cir. 2006),

review

standard

for

revocation

supervised

release).

accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in 2

this

case

and

have

found

no

meritorious

issues

for

appeal. This

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If the client requests such this a that a petition would leave be be to

counsel then

believes may

that move

petition for

frivolous,

counsel

court

withdraw from representation.

Counsel's motion must state that We dispense with oral

a copy thereof was served on the client.

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

3