US v. Corey Beach

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cr-01226-PMD-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999575901].. [14-4928]

Appeal: 14-4928

Doc: 20

Filed: 05/01/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Corey Anthony Beach appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 11 months’
imprisonment.
California,

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

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.

2

Appeal: 14-4928

Doc: 20

Filed: 05/01/2015

Pg: 3 of 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

3