UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4265
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY LAMB,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:02-cr-00058-RGD)
Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 19, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Walter B.
Dalton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant. Scott Walker Putney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Lamb appeals his twenty-month term of
imprisonment imposed after the district court revoked his
supervised release. Lamb’s attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967), raising
the argument that the sentence was not reasonable, but stating that
he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Government did not
file an answering brief, and although advised of his right to do
so, Lamb did not file a pro se supplemental brief.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Pursuant to United States v. Crudup, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2006 WL
2243586, at *3 (4th Cir. Aug. 7, 2006), revocation sentences are
reviewed to determine whether they are “plainly unreasonable” with
regard to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors applicable to
these sentences. We find that Lamb’s sentence is not plainly
unreasonable because the district court sentenced Lamb within the
statutory maximum and sufficiently stated a proper basis for its
conclusion that Lamb should be sentenced to a lengthier sentence
than one within the advisory range. We therefore affirm Lamb’s
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform
Lamb, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Lamb requests that a petition
be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
- 2 -
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 Lamb.
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 -