UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4816
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHNNIE MAE BROOKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00285-JAB)
Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 25, 2008
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Michael Hamilton, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnnie Mae Brooks appeals her three-month sentence
imposed upon revocation of her probation. On appeal, Brooks’
attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, but suggesting the court erred in the length of the
sentence imposed. Although advised of her right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, Brooks has not done so. After a thorough
review of the record, we affirm.
This court will affirm a sentence imposed after
revocation of probation if it is within the applicable statutory
maximum and is not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden,
478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Crudup,
461 F.3d 433, 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct.
1813 (2007)). Brooks’ three-month sentence was within the advisory
policy statement range of three to nine months and well below the
statutory maximum of twenty-four months. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3) (2000). Brooks’ sentence is not plainly unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny counsel’s motion to
withdraw. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If the client requests that a petition
- 2 -
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 -