UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4075
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND C. ASBERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:11-cr-02200-TMC-1)
Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora Blanchard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond C. Asberry appeals the fourteen-month sentence
imposed by the district court upon revocation of Asberry’s
supervised release. On appeal, Asberry’s counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether the district court adequately explained
Asberry’s revocation sentence. Although notified of his right
to do so, Asberry has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Our review of the record reveals no error in the district
court’s explanation of Asberry’s sentence. See United States v.
Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v.
Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s revocation
judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Asberry, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Asberry 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 Asberry. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3