UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4966
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TAMMY BLACKWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(7:06-cr-00262)
Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 21, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Margaret A. Chamberlain, CHAMBERLAIN LAW FIRM, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tammy Blackwell appeals her fifteen month sentence
imposed following her guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to
possess counterfeit obligations of the United States, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000). Blackwell’s counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 286 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggesting
that the district court erred in denying Blackwell’s motion for a
variance base on her limited intellect.
We find that the district court properly applied the
Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing
factors before imposing the fifteen month sentence. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006); see United States v. Hughes,
401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we find that
the district court’s decision to deny Blackwell’s request for a
variance from the guideline range was reasonable, and its
determination of the sentence within the range was reasonable. See
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006). (“[A]
sentence imposed within the properly calculated [g]uidelines range
[. . .] is presumptively reasonable.”) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). Accordingly, we affirm Blackwell’s
sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
- 2 -
affirm Blackwell’s conviction and sentence. This court requires
that counsel inform her client, in writing, of her 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 in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s 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
- 3 -