United States of America v. Jabrail Adrian Wofford

22-4044Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 20, 2023

Full text

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4044
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JABRAIL ADRIAN WOFFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
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)
Submitted: April 24, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.