UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4263
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CATHY DIANE FERGUSON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(7:09-cr-00890-HFF-1)
Submitted: October 19, 2010 Decided: October 26, 2010
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora E. Collins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Cathy Diane Ferguson pled guilty to trafficking in
false identification documents and aggravated identity theft.
The district court sentenced her to 110 months imprisonment for
the trafficking in false identification documents charge and a
consecutive 24 months on the two counts of aggravated identity
theft. Ferguson’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 the district court fully complied with Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Ferguson’s guilty plea and whether
her sentence is reasonable. In a supplemental pro se brief,
Ferguson additionally questions whether the district court had
jurisdiction over her offenses. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea,
this court reviews the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. See United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the
transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the
district court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting
Ferguson’s guilty plea. The court ensured that Ferguson
understood the charges against her and the potential sentence
she faced, that she entered her plea knowingly and voluntarily,
2
and that the plea was supported by an independent factual basis.
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th
Cir. 1991). Additionally, because Ferguson was charged with the
violation of federal statutes, prosecution in the federal
district court was proper. Accordingly, we affirm Ferguson’s
convictions.
We have reviewed Ferguson’s sentence and determined
that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed
was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007); United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir.
2010). At sentencing, Ferguson and the Government stipulated
that the probation officer correctly computed the applicable
guideline range and that a within-guidelines sentence satisfied
the needs of sentencing, as described in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006). The district court agreed with the stipulation, adopted
it, and sentenced Ferguson to the lowest end of the applicable
guideline range on the trafficking in false identification
documents count, and a mandatory consecutive 24 months on the
aggravated identity theft counts. We conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen
sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of
reasonableness to within-guidelines sentence).
3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Ferguson’s convictions and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Ferguson, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Ferguson 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 Ferguson. 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