UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4719
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRACI LYNN MARTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. William B. Traxler, Jr., Circuit
Judge, sitting by designation. (6:08-cr-00022-GRA-1)
Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: April 10, 2009
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. James D. Galyean, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Traci Lynn Martin pleaded guilty to two counts of
unlawful possession of stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1708 (2006). Martin was sentenced to sixty-three months of
imprisonment. Martin’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Martin
has filed a pro se brief raising an additional issue. We
affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the
district court committed plain error in sentencing Martin. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
731-32 (1993). A sentence is reviewed for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v.
Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). The appellate court must
first determine whether the district court committed any
“significant procedural error,” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597, and
then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
applying a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within
the guidelines range. Go, 517 F.3d at 218; see also Gall, 128
S. Ct. at 597; Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S.
Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of
reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence).
2
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find that
the district court committed no procedural error in calculating
the sentence. Furthermore, we find that the district court’s
within-guidelines sentence was reasonable. Although Martin
claims in her pro se brief that the district court should have
considered her history of drug abuse and mental illness in
pronouncing the sentence, our review of the record reveals that
the district court did consider these issues in sentencing
Martin.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Martin, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Martin 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
Martin. 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