UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4771
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SONYA CHARISSE DOUGLAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00073-RJC-1)
Submitted: March 23, 2009 Decided: April 14, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, Cecilia
Oseguera, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina;
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Sonya Charisse Douglas pleaded guilty to making false
statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(1)(2) (2006).
Douglas was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment and now
appeals. Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging Douglas’ sentence,
but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Douglas was informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but did not do so. We affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether
Douglas’ sentence is procedurally and substantively
unreasonable. Appellate courts review a sentence imposed by a
district court for reasonableness, applying an abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597
(2007); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir.
2007). The court must:
first ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error, such as failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)]
factors, . . . or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence--including an explanation for any
deviation from the Guidelines range.”
Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If there are no procedural errors in
the sentencing, the appellate court then considers the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. “Substantive
2
reasonableness review entails taking into account the ‘totality
of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from
the Guidelines range.’” Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473 (quoting Gall,
128 S. Ct. at 597). If a sentence is within the Guidelines
range, an appellate court may presume that the sentence is
reasonable. Id.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court committed no error in sentencing Douglas. The
court properly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the
§ 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained the chosen sentence.
Furthermore, we conclude that Douglas’ within-Guidelines
sentence also is substantively reasonable.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. We therefore affirm Douglas’ conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Douglas, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Douglas 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 Douglas.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4