US v. Frederick William, No. 11-4417 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4417 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. FREDERICK WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:10-cr-00165-ICB-1) Submitted: November 16, 2011 Decided: November 22, 2011 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven R. Kiersh, KIERSH LAW OFFICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frederick Williams appeals the district court s judgment entered pursuant to his guilty plea to one count of distribution of oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). Counsel for Williams has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts that he has meritorious reviewed issues for the entire appeal, and record and seeks discerned leave to no withdraw. Williams was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the hearing conducted pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. this juncture, we deny counsel s motion to withdraw. requires that counsel inform his client, in At This court writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel the client believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be be frivolous, counsel may move in this court at that time for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on the client. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts Finally, we and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.