UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4478
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
QUENTIN VIRGIL WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:03-cr-00024-WLO)
Submitted: November 17, 2006 Decided: December 13, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a hearing at which Quentin Virgil Williams
admitted to violating conditions of his supervised release, the
district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to
twenty-four months in prison. Williams appealed. His attorney has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 366 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting his opinion that there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court
erred in imposing a twenty-four month sentence. The Government did
not file a reply brief, and although advised of his right to do so,
Williams did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
We recently held in United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433
(4th Cir. 2006), that we review sentences imposed upon the
revocation of supervised release to determine whether the sentence
is “plainly unreasonable.” In this case, Williams’s sentence was
not above the statutory maximum of two years of imprisonment, the
court considered the Chapter 7 advisory policy statement range, and
the court stated a proper basis for sentencing Williams to twenty-
four months of imprisonment. See Crudup, 461 F.3d at 437.
Specifically the court noted Williams’s poor adjustment to
supervised release and his repeated violations. Because Williams’s
sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable,
we find that his sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
- 2 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel inform
Williams, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review. If Williams 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 Williams. 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 -