UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4297
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JASON MOON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
Chief District Judge. (2:06-cr-00074)
Submitted: September 26, 2007 Decided: October 10, 2007
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Steven Ian
Loew, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jason Moon was found guilty of committing several Grade
C violations of his supervised release and was sentenced to nine
months of imprisonment and twenty-seven months of supervised
release thereafter. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are
no meritorious claims on appeal but raising the following issue:
whether the district court’s sentence was erroneous. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
We do not find that Moon’s sentence is plainly
unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th
Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007) (stating review
standard). Moon was sentenced within a properly-calculated
advisory sentencing range of three to nine months. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 7B1.4(a), p.s. (2006)
(revocation table). Accordingly, we find no error in his sentence.
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious
issues for appeal.* Accordingly, we affirm the revocation order
and the sentence imposed. 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
*
Moon was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but failed to do so.
- 2 -
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 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 -