Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Reedom, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming Harold K. Reedom's conviction and sentence for willful failure to pay child support. Reedom's counsel argued that the magistrate judge did not comply with Rule 11 procedures during the plea hearing and that the sentence was unlawful, but the Court reviewed the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence and informed Reedom's counsel that if Reedom requests a petition to the Supreme Court, counsel may withdraw from representation by filing a motion stating the petition would be frivolous.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-12-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-4637

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming Harold K. Reedom's conviction and sentence for willful failure to pay child support. Reedom's counsel argued that the magistrate judge did not comply with Rule 11 procedures during the plea hearing and that the sentence was unlawful, but the Court reviewed the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence and informed Reedom's counsel that if Reedom requests a petition to the Supreme Court, counsel may withdraw from representation by filing a motion stating the petition would be frivolous.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views2 pages

    United States v. Reedom, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming Harold K. Reedom's conviction and sentence for willful failure to pay child support. Reedom's counsel argued that the magistrate judge did not comply with Rule 11 procedures during the plea hearing and that the sentence was unlawful, but the Court reviewed the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence and informed Reedom's counsel that if Reedom requests a petition to the Supreme Court, counsel may withdraw from representation by filing a motion stating the petition would be frivolous.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-4637

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    HAROLD K. REEDOM,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (CR-01-861)

    Submitted:

    December 9, 2004

    Decided:

    December 14, 2004

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South


    Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Hunter Young, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Harold K. Reedom appeals from his conviction and sentence
    following his guilty plea to willful failure to pay a child support
    obligation in violation of 18 U.S.C. 228 (2000).

    Reedoms

    counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.


    738, 744 (1967) stating that there are no meritorious issues for
    appeal, but asserting that the magistrate judge did not comply with
    the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 at the plea hearing and
    that the sentence imposed was in violation of the law.

    Reedom was

    informed of his right to file a pro se brief, but has not done so.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.

    We, therefore, affirm Reedoms conviction and sentence.

    This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of


    his 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

    representation.

    in

    this

    court

    for

    leave

    to

    withdraw

    from

    Counsels motion must 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.
    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like