UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4583
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TYEESHA ANN BURL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00329-RBH)
Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 15, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan Scott Gasser, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; William Earl Day,
II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tyeesha Ann Burl appeals her twelve month and one day
sentence following her guilty plea and conviction for conspiracy to
commit bank fraud. Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Though notified of her
opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, Burl has not done
so. The Government has declined to file a reply brief. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
Burl suggests that the district court erred by not fully
complying with Fed. R. Crim P. 11 at the guilty plea hearing. The
transcript of the Rule 11 hearing discloses that the district court
meticulously followed Rule 11 to ensure Burl would fully understand
the significance of her guilty plea and that the plea was knowing
and voluntary. After questioning Burl about the charges, her
attorney’s services, the rights that she was giving up by pleading
guilty, the advisory guidelines ranges, the maximum penalties, and
relevant conduct, the court found Burl fully competent and capable
of entering an informed plea. The district court fully complied
with its Rule 11 obligations and we find this issue meritless.
Burl also suggests that the district court erred by
imposing an unreasonable sentence. After United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), a district court is no longer bound by the
range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. However, in
imposing a sentence post-Booker, courts still must calculate the
- 2 -
applicable guideline range after making the appropriate findings of
fact and consider the range in conjunction with other relevant
factors under the guidelines and § 3553(a). United States v.
Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2054 (2006). This court will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it
“is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable.”
Id. at 433 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A]
sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339,
341 (4th Cir. 2006); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct.
2456 (2007).
“The district court need not discuss each factor set
forth in § 3553(a) ‘in checklist fashion;’ ‘it is enough to
calculate the range accurately and explain why (if the sentence
lies outside it) this defendant deserves more or less.’” Moreland,
437 F.3d at 432 (quoting United States v. Dean, 414 F.3d 725, 729
(7th Cir. 2005)).
Here, the district court sentenced Burl post-Booker and
appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory. The court
sentenced Burl after considering and examining the sentencing
guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, as instructed by Booker.
Burl’s twelve month and one day sentence is within the appropriate
guidelines range and is well below the five-year statutory maximum
sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000).
- 3 -
Burl objected to the use of relevant conduct in factoring
her guidelines sentencing range. The Government also objected to
a reduction under USSG § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility,
arguing that Burl was falsely denying relevant conduct. The court
heard evidence from Government witnesses about Burl and her co-
conspirator’s conduct in each of the dismissed counts. The court
found the testimony offered in support of the relevant conduct
reliable and credible and that Burl committed the offenses in six
of the thirteen counts. Burl offers no evidence beyond her self-
serving denial of the conduct to counter the evidence put forth at
the sentencing hearing. Moreover, Burl waived the right to
challenge inclusion of relevant conduct to enhance her sentence in
her plea agreement and agreed that she understood this waiver at
her Rule 11 hearing.
Finally, the court explained that this case involved a
“lot of fraud,” and that Burl had a prior criminal record.
Specifically, the court explained that it had considered the
§ 3553(a) factors and looked at the characteristics of the
defendant, the need to promote respect for the law, and to provide
just punishment. Neither Burl nor the record suggests any
information so compelling as to rebut the presumption that her
sentence was reasonable. Therefore, we conclude the sentence was
reasonable.
- 4 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Burl’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Burl, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Burl 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 Burl.
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
- 5 -