UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4282
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JANICE COXE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-00479-RBH-15)
Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 9, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RAY COIT YARBOROUGH,
JR., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In accordance with a plea agreement, Janice Coxe pled
guilty to conspiracy to commit marriage fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371
(2006). She was sentenced to six months in prison. Coxe now
appeals. Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the
district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and whether the
sentence is unreasonable but stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Coxe was advised of her right to
file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file such a brief.
We affirm.
Our review of the transcript of Coxe’s guilty plea
proceeding discloses full compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
Further, we find that her sentence is reasonable. See Gall v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). In this regard,
Coxe’s advisory guideline range was 10-16 months, reflecting a
total offense level of 11 and criminal history category II. The
district court granted the United States’ motion for downward
departure based on substantial assistance and departed downward
two levels, resulting in a sentencing range of 6-12 months. The
court clearly stated its reasons for granting the Government’s
motion and for denying Coxe’s motion for a variance. The record
reveals that, in sentencing Coxe, the district court properly
calculated her guideline range, treated the guidelines as
2
advisory, considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors, and adequately explained its reasons for imposing the
six-month sentence. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,
474 (4th Cir. 2007).
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This
court requires 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, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw
from representation. Counsel=s motion must state that a copy of
the motion 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