UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4305
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY SHARONE PEOPLES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:04-cr-00860-TLW-1)
Submitted: February 8, 2010 Decided: February 25, 2010
Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James T. McBratney, Jr., MCBRATNEY LAW FIRM, P.A., Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Sharone Peoples seeks to appeal the district
court’s order granting the Government’s motion filed pursuant to
Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)(2), and reducing his sentence by
thirty-four months. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal and questioning whether
Peoples may appeal the district court’s order reducing his
sentence. Peoples was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he has not filed one. We dismiss the
appeal.
Our review of the record pursuant to Anders convinces
us that Peoples’ sentence was not imposed in violation of law.
See United States v. Hartwell, 448 F.3d 707, 712 (4th Cir.
2006); United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 322 (4th Cir. 1995).
Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
Hartwell, 448 F.3d at 713-14. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of the 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 in this court for
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
2
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.
DISMISSED
3