UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4182
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHILOH RANA BENNETT, a/k/a Regina Dianne Bennett,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:08-cr-00206-HMH-2)
Submitted: November 30, 2009 Decided: December 23, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shiloh Rana Bennett pled guilty to uttering
counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 513(a) & 2
(2006), and fraud with false documents, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(3) & 2 (2006). The district court sentenced
Bennett to concurrent terms of thirty months in prison. Bennett
timely appealed. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), finding no meritorious grounds
for appeal but questioning whether Bennett’s sentence was
reasonable. Bennett was advised of, but did not exercise, her
right to file a pro se supplemental brief.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). This review requires appellate consideration of both
the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence.
Id. After determining whether the district court properly
calculated the defendant’s advisory guidelines range, we must
then assess whether the district court considered the
§ 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the
parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.
at 50-51; see United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th
Cir. 2009). The record must establish that the district court
made “an individualized assessment based on the facts
presented.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
2
We find no error by the district court in calculating
Bennett’s guidelines range. Moreover, the court’s statements at
Bennett’s sentencing hearing reflect an “individualized
assessment” of the facts pertaining to her sentence. We also
find the below-guidelines sentence to be substantively
reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Bennett, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Bennett 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 Bennett. 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