UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4857
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHIRLEY T. WATSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00797-PMD-1)
Submitted: March 23, 2011 Decided: April 8, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Dean Hodge Secor, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shirley T. Watson pleaded guilty to one count of
unlawful use of a social security number, in violation of 42
U.S.C. § 408(a)(8) (2006), and one count of identity theft, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7), (b)(1)(D) (2006). She
received a twenty-seven month sentence and was ordered to pay
$86,930.38 in restitution. On appeal, Watson’s counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating his opinion that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in
accepting Watson’s plea and whether Watson’s sentence was
reasonable. Watson, although informed of her right to do so,
has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has
declined to file a responsive brief. We affirm.
Because Watson did not move in the district court to
withdraw her guilty plea, the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for
plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26
(4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, she “must show:
(1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error
affects substantial rights.” United States v. Massenburg, 564
F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009) (reviewing unpreserved Rule 11
error). “The decision to correct the error lies within [this
court’s] discretion, and [the court] exercise[s] that discretion
only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or
2
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 343
(internal quotation marks omitted). After thoroughly reviewing
the record, we conclude that Watson’s plea was knowing,
voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis.
We review Watson’s sentence under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires the court
to “ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines
range.” United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.
2008) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations
omitted). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the
circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. This court presumes on
appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines
range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193
(4th Cir. 2007). Our review of the record leads us to conclude
that Watson’s sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Watson’s convictions and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Watson, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Watson requests that a petition be filed,
3
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 Watson. 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