UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4880
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
4