US v. Antonio Simmons, No. 11-5090 (4th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5090 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO J. SIMMONS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cr-00347-DCN-2) Submitted: March 27, 2012 Decided: May 10, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antonio agreement, to J. one convicted felon 924(a)(2) (2006). eighty-four Simmons count in supervised release. of in guilty, possession violation The months pleaded of district prison 18 court followed of without a firearm U.S.C. plea by a ยงยง 922(g)(1), sentenced by a Simmons to years of three On appeal, Simmons counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she states that she can find no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel seeks our review of the district court s compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and the reasonableness of Simmons sentence. Finding no reversible error on either of those fronts, or other meritorious issue elsewhere in the record, we affirm the district court s judgment. This Court requires that counsel inform Simmons, in writing, of the right to petition United States for further review. the Supreme Court of the If Simmons 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 Simmons. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 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.