UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4203
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GLORIA A. CANNON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:01-cr-00499-GRA)
Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: July 25, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Following a hearing at which Gloria Cannon admitted to
violating conditions of her supervised release, the district court
revoked Cannon’s release and imposed a three-month term of
imprisonment. Cannon appeals. Her attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 367 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but requesting
that we review the imposition of sentence. Cannon was advised of
her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not file
such a brief.
Cannon’s admitted violations justified revocation of her
supervised release. Further, the district court properly
calculated Cannon’s guidelines range of three to nine months’
imprisonment, and imposed a three-month term, well below the
applicable statutory maximum. Nothing in the record suggests any
error on the part of the district court, and we conclude the
sentence imposed was proper.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This
court requires counsel to inform his client, in writing, of her
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
- 2 -
counsel may move 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 set forth in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -