United States v. Arrowood

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4880

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

TAMMY RENEE SMITH ARROWOOD,

Defendant - Appellant,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-220-2)

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Oglesby, Ellenboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kenneth
Michel Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Tammy Renee Smith Arrowood pled guilty to conspiracy

to defraud the United States and conspiracy to manufacture and

to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and was

sentenced to twenty-four months in prison. She now appeals.

Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that Arrowood’s sentence is

unreasonable, but concluding that there are no meritorious

issues for appeal. Although informed of her right to do so,

Arrowood has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no

reversible error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse

of discretion standard. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,

473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). In making this decision, we first

examine the sentence “for significant procedural errors.” Id.

There were no such errors in this case; we note that the

sentencing court correctly calculated the advisory guideline

range, heard from the parties regarding an appropriate sentence,

considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West

2000 & Supp. 2008), and articulated compelling reasons for

imposing a variance sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473.

Specifically, the court considered Arrowood’s mental and

emotional health and her meager work record and determined that

2
the situation warranted a minor downward variation from the

advisory guideline range of 27 to 33 months’ imprisonment.

Our review also requires us to consider the substance

of the sentence, taking into account the “totality of the

circumstances.” Id. Arrowood contends that the court erred by

imposing an active prison sentence, particularly given the

court’s acknowledgement of her physical and emotional problems.

Given the seriousness of the charges to which Arrowood pled

guilty, as well as the other circumstances of this case, we find

that Arrowood’s sentence is substantively reasonable and that

the district court did not abuse its discretion.

We have examined the entire record in the case in

accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no

meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

Arrowood’s convictions and sentence. This court requires that

counsel inform his 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

3
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED