UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4333
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SUSAN ROSEANNE SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00201-NCT-1)
Submitted: October 15, 2008 Decided: October 28, 2008
Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Harry L. Hobgood, Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Susan Roseanne Smith pled guilty to one count of
filing a false joint tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C.
§ 7206(1) (2006). The district court sentenced Smith to thirty-
three months in prison, one year of supervised release, and
restitution.
Smith’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), finding no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the
district court erred in sentencing Smith to thirty-three months’
incarceration. Smith was advised of her right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no meritorious
grounds for appeal, we affirm.
This court will affirm a sentence imposed by the
district court as long as it is within the statutorily
prescribed range and is reasonable. United States v. Hughes,
401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005). In assessing the
reasonableness of the sentence, we focus on whether the district
court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence. United
States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). We first
examine the sentence for significant procedural errors, and then
look at the substance of the sentence. Id. A sentence within a
properly calculated sentencing guideline range is presumptively
reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2
2007). We review a district court’s factual findings for clear
error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v.
Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the record and find that Smith’s
sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Although counsel raises the issue of whether the district court
erred in sentencing Smith to thirty-three months in prison, he
concludes that the sentence was within a properly calculated
guideline range and was not unreasonable. We agree.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
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. Finally, 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