USCA4 Appeal: 24-4128 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/09/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4128

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GARLAND SANGRIA SLADE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00432-WO-1)

Submitted: October 7, 2024 Decided: October 9, 2024

Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Rebecca A. Olla, LAW OFFICE OF REBECCA A. OLLA, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4128 Doc: 23 Filed: 10/09/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Garland Sangria Slade appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his term of

supervised release and imposing a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment and 12 months’

supervised release. On appeal, Slade’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California,

(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.

Although he was notified of his right to do so, Slade has not filed a pro se supplemental

brief. The Government has declined to file a response brief.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm. At the

revocation proceedings, the district court revoked Slade’s supervised release based on only

the second of two alleged violations (“Violation 2”). Because the court’s judgment

incorrectly states that Slade also committed Violation 1, we remand so that the district court

may correct this clerical error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

This court requires that counsel inform Slade, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Slade 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 Slade. 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 AND REMANDED

2