UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4928
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COREY ANTHONY BEACH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-01226-PMD-1)
Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: May 1, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Corey Anthony Beach appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 11 months’
imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Beach’s
revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable. Beach was advised
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not
done so.
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the
record in this case and conclude that Beach’s sentence is not
plainly unreasonable and that there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
See United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013)
(“We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the
statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). This court requires that counsel
inform Beach, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Beach
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 state that a copy thereof was served on Beach.
2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3