UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4036
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DEANN HOLLOWAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-01-670)
Submitted: May 12, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan Scott Gasser, Acting
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, William Corley
Lucius, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Deann Holloway appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking a probation sentence on her conviction for conspiring to
defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000),
and resentencing her to ten months in prison followed by two years
of supervised release. Holloway’s attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
there are no meritorious legal issues but arguing the district
court abused its discretion. Holloway has been informed of her
right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
We review a district court’s judgment revoking a
probation sentence for abuse of discretion. Burns v. United
States, 287 U.S. 216, 222 (1932). Upon finding a probation
violation, the district court may revoke probation and resentence
the defendant to any sentence within the statutory maximum for the
original offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a) (2000); United States v.
Schaefer, 120 F.3d 505, 507 (4th Cir. 1997). Holloway’s sentence
fell within the guidelines range of 4-10 months and was clearly
below the five year statutory maximum. Thus, we find the district
court did not abuse its discretion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We, therefore, affirm the district court’s judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her
- 2 -
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client 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 the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decision process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -