UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4204
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOJENA ADKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-144)
Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tim C. Carrico, CARRICO LAW OFFICES, LC, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Karen B.
George, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jojena Adkins appeals her conviction and one-year
sentence for committing perjury in front of a grand jury, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (2000). Adkins’ attorney has filed
a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging the district court’s refusal of her request
that she serve her sentence under home confinement, but stating
that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. Adkins was
notified of her opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief but
has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
At sentencing, Adkins withdrew her objections to the PSR
and consented that the applicable guidelines range was twelve to
eighteen months. In accordance with United States v. Booker, 125
S.Ct. 738, 764-65 (2005), the district court treated the Guidelines
as advisory and, after considering the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553 (2000), imposed a sentence at the low end of the
applicable Guidelines range. Accordingly, we conclude that the
sentence imposed was reasonable. Id.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We, therefore, affirm Adkins’ conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,
- 2 -
but counsel believes that such 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
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -