UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5227
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SANDRA G. ROBINSON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cr-00578-HMH-3)
Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leslie Sarji Locklair, LOCKLAIR & LOCKLAIR, PC, Surfside Beach,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sandra G. Robinson pled guilty to conspiracy against
the United States, fraud and related activity in connection with
identification documents, and aggravated identity theft based on
her activities in making counterfeit checks using identification
information gathered from stolen mail. The district court
sentenced her to 24 months imprisonment for the first two
offenses, and a consecutive 24 months on the aggravated identity
theft conviction. Robinson’s counsel filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues
for appeal, but questioning whether Robinson’s sentence was
improperly enhanced in relation to the extent of her involvement
in the conspiracy, whether the district court’s consideration of
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors was sufficient, and
whether Robinson’s sentence is reasonable. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
On appeal, Robinson asserts that her sentence is
procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to
adequately analyze the statutory sentencing factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and explain the reasons for selecting the
forty-eight-month total sentence. When determining a sentence,
the district court must calculate the appropriate advisory
guidelines range and consider it in conjunction with the
2
§ 3553(a) factors. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50
(2007). Additionally, the district court “must place on the
record an individualized assessment based on the particular
facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a sentence,
“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
[g]uidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 41.
Sentences within the applicable guidelines range are presumed by
the appellate court to be reasonable. United States v. Pauley,
511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Robinson, appropriately treating the
sentencing guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and
considering the applicable guidelines range, and weighing the
relevant § 3553(a) factors. Additionally, the district court
considered and adopted the findings in the presentence report,
considered the statements and arguments asserted by counsel on
Robinson’s behalf, including her lack of any prior criminal
history, and allowed Robinson’s daughter to address the court
and plea for leniency for her mother. The court noted, however,
that, shortly after joining the conspiracy, Robinson was
arrested and, upon release, she resumed her criminal activities.
3
We are satisfied from our review of the record “‘that
[the district court] has considered the parties’ arguments and
has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal
decisionmaking authority.’” United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d
495, 500 (4th Cir.) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 356 (2007)) (alterations in original), petition for cert.
filed, 78 U.S.L.W. 3764 (U.S. June 10, 2010) (No. 09-1512). We
find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
determination of Robinson’s sentence, and therefore affirm.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Robinson, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Robinson 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 Robinson. 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
4