UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4254
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KOSHON IRVIN MITCHELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:04-cr-00534-DCN-AL)
Submitted: January 26, 2007 Decided: February 26, 2007
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Capers G. Barr, III, BARR, UNGER & MCINTOSH, LLC, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Koshon Irvin Mitchell pled
guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit access device fraud and
bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000). The district
court sentenced Mitchell to fifteen months’ imprisonment and
ordered him to pay $5783.18 in restitution.
The government subsequently filed a motion to reduce
Mitchell’s sentence, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b), based on
Mitchell’s substantial assistance in a murder investigation. The
district court granted the motion and entered an amended criminal
judgment, sentencing Mitchell to time served, but leaving all other
conditions from the original judgment undisturbed. Mitchell
appealed.*
Mitchell’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his opinion,
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but challenging the
restitution order. Mitchell was advised of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief, but did not file one.
Mitchell filed no objections in the district court to the
restitution order. Therefore, Mitchell’s challenge to the
restitution order is subject to plain error review. United States
v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). We find that the district
court did not plainly err in making the restitution determination.
*
Mitchell voluntarily withdrew his appeal from the original
criminal judgment pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b).
- 2 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the amended criminal judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Mitchell, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Mitchell 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 Mitchell. 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 -