UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4586
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASON COX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00214-WO-3)
Submitted: February 4, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jason Cox pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to
commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1344
(2006), one count of bank fraud and aiding and abetting such
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344(2) & 2 (2006), and one
count of identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1)
(2006). He was sentenced to twenty-three months’ imprisonment
for the two bank fraud convictions and a consecutive two-year
statutory sentence for the identity theft conviction. He was
also sentenced to a three year term of supervised release for
the conspiracy conviction, a five year term of supervised
release for the substantive bank fraud conviction and a one year
term of supervised release for the identity theft conviction,
all running concurrently. In addition, Cox was ordered to pay
restitution in the amount of $97,869.39, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3663A (2006). Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying there were no
meritorious issues for appeal. Cox was informed of the
opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do
so. The Government did not file a brief. We affirm.
We find no error with the plea agreement or the Rule
11 colloquy. Cox appeared competent to plead guilty and was
aware of the charges against him, the possible penalties and the
2
assorted rights he was waiving or losing by virtue of his pleas
and his convictions. Accordingly, we affirm his convictions.
We also conclude there was no error at sentencing.
There were no objections to the properly calculated Sentencing
Guidelines. The district court was aware that the Guidelines
were advisory and that it should consider the sentencing factors
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It was clear the court considered
counsel’s arguments for a sentence at the low end of the
Guidelines and for a three year term of supervised release. The
within Guidelines sentence is reasonable. See United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Cox’s convictions and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Cox, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Cox 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 Cox. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4