UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4799
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANNA LAURA HOWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00014-jpj-pms-1)
Submitted: April 1, 2010 Decided: April 20, 2010
Before GREGORY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Beck,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Jennifer
R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anna Laura Howell pleaded guilty to money laundering,
in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956(a) (2006 & West Supp. 2009),
and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West Supp.
2009). The district court sentenced Howell to thirty-six months
of imprisonment and she now appeals. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Howell argues that the district court’s sentence is
both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We review a
sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see
also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In so doing, we first
examine the sentence for “significant procedural error,”
including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
[g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines as mandatory,
failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors,
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence . . . .”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Finally, we “then consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.” Id. This
court presumes on appeal that a sentence within a properly
calculated advisory guidelines range is substantively
reasonable. See United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th
2
Cir. 2008); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007)
(upholding permissibility of presumption of reasonableness for
within guidelines sentence).
Howell first argues that the district court failed to
adequately explain the chosen sentence. This court recently
reaffirmed, in United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir.
2009), that a district court must conduct an “individualized
assessment” of the particular facts of every sentence, whether
the court imposes a sentence above, below, or within the
guidelines range. Id. at 330. While “[t]his individualized
assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, . . . it must
provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and
adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). In addition, “[w]here
[the parties] present[] nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a
. . . sentence [outside the advisory guidelines range,] . . . a
district judge should address the party’s arguments and explain
why he has rejected those arguments.” Id. at 328 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that the district court provided an adequate statement of
reasons for its upward variance from the advisory guidelines
range. Moreover, we find that the court explained its rejection
of Howell’s nonfrivolous arguments for a within-guidelines
3
sentence and, therefore, we also find that the sentence is
procedurally reasonable.
Howell next argues that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable. However, while we do not accord the presumption
of reasonableness to the court’s above-guidelines sentence, we
conclude that Howell’s sentence is also substantively reasonable
based on the factors listed by the district court in imposing
the variant sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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