UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4298
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SCOTTY RAY PULLIAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00015-CCE-1)
Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ames Colby Chamberlin, LAW OFFICES OF AMES C. CHAMBERLIN,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Scotty Ray Pulliam appeals the 21-month sentence imposed by
the district court upon revocation of his supervised release.
On appeal, Pulliam’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 Pulliam’s revocation
sentence. Although notified of his right to do so, Pulliam has
not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Our review of the record
reveals no error in the district court’s explanation of
Pulliam’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 Pulliam, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Pulliam 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 Pulliam. 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