US v. Scotty Pulliam

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00015-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999976612]. [16-4298]

Appeal: 16-4298

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4298

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SCOTTY RAY PULLIAM,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00015-CCE-1)

Submitted:

November 22, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

November 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ames Colby Chamberlin, LAW OFFICES OF AMES C. CHAMBERLIN,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4298

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Scotty Ray Pulliam appeals the 21-month sentence imposed by
the district court upon revocation of his supervised release.
On

appeal,

Pulliam’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

sentence.

court

adequately

explained

Pulliam’s

revocation

Although notified of his right to do so, Pulliam has

not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our review of the record

reveals

court’s

no

error

Pulliam’s sentence.

in

the

district

explanation

of

See United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638,

640 (4th Cir. 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 Pulliam, in
of

the

right

to

petition

United States for further review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If Pulliam 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 Pulliam.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2

Appeal: 16-4298

Doc: 23

adequately

Filed: 11/29/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3