UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4649
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LADARCUS OMAR NESBITT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:05-cr-00412-GRA)
Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 21, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ladarcus Omar Nesbitt appeals the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to six months’
imprisonment. Nesbitt’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are
no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggesting that the district
court erred by revoking supervised release and sentencing Nesbitt
based on supervised release violations. Nesbitt has been informed
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done
so.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Nesbitt admitted to
violations of his supervised release, and his sentence was
reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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 that such 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
- 2 -