US v. Raymond Asberry

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:11-cr-02200-TMC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999901135].. [16-4075]

Appeal: 16-4075

Doc: 19

Filed: 08/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4075

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND C. ASBERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:11-cr-02200-TMC-1)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 1, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lora Blanchard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
William Jacob Watkins, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4075

Doc: 19

Filed: 08/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Raymond
imposed

by

C.
the

Asberry

appeals

district

court

supervised release.

the

fourteen-month

upon

revocation

of

sentence
Asberry’s

On appeal, Asberry’s counsel has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning

whether

the

district

Asberry’s revocation sentence.

court

adequately

explained

Although notified of his right

to do so, Asberry has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Our

review

of

the

record

reveals

no

error

court’s explanation of Asberry’s sentence.
Webb,

738

F.3d

638,

640

(4th

Cir.

in

the

district

See United States v.

2013);

United

States

v.

Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
judgment.
writing,

We therefore affirm the district court’s revocation
This court requires that counsel inform Asberry, in
of

the

right

to

petition

United States for further review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If Asberry 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 Asberry.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2

Appeal: 16-4075

Doc: 19

adequately

Filed: 08/01/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3