Opinion
22-4044
05-22-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JABRAIL ADRIAN WOFFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
Emily Deck Harrill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: April 24, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:18-cr-00028-HMH-1)
ON BRIEF:
Emily Deck Harrill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jabrail Adrian Wofford appeals the district court's order granting a postjudgment motion. Defense counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court erred in its evaluation of the motion. The Government has declined to file a response brief, and Wofford has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, despite being advised of his right to do so.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's amended judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Wofford, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Wofford 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 Wofford.
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