UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4901
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LILLIE A. BARBER,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (3:06-cr-00320-MBS-2)
Submitted: January 23, 2009 Decided: February 5, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Hunter Young, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lillie A. Barber was convicted of conspiring to
defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371
(2006), and was sentenced to sixty months of probation.
Thereafter, Barber pled guilty to three probation violations and
the district court did not alter her sentence other than to
require her to spend four months in a halfway house.
Nonetheless, Barber again violated the conditions of her
probation and pled guilty to three new violations. This time the
district court sentenced her to six months of incarceration.
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following
issue: whether the district court erred by sentencing Barber
within the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range without giving
adequate consideration to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We first note that Barber was sentenced in the middle
of her advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of three to nine
months. Thus, we do not find her resulting sentence is plainly
unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th
Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007) (providing
review standard for revocation of supervised release). In
accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in
2
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This
court requires that counsel inform her 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 be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move 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