UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4816
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LISA EUGENIA WYKLE, a/k/a Lisa Wykle McCoy, a/k/a Lisa
Eugenia McCoy,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00025-MR-12)
Submitted: April 4, 2011 Decided: May 6, 2011
Before DAVIS and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew B. Banzhoff, DEVEREUX & BANZHOFF, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lisa Eugenia Wykle appeals her sentence of 204 months
in prison and ten years of supervised release after she pled
guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five
hundred or more grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2006). Wykle’s attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting, in counsel’s opinion, there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but raising the issues of whether the
district court imposed an unreasonable sentence on Wykle and
whether we may review the denial of Wykle’s motion for downward
departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5H1.4
(2008). Wykle was notified of her right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. We dismiss the appeal
in part, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We review a 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 us to ensure
that the district court committed no significant procedural
error, such as improperly calculating the guideline range,
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or
failing to adequately explain the sentence. United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). If the sentence is
procedurally reasonable, we then consider the substantive
2
reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
In sentencing, the district court should first
calculate the guideline range and give the parties an
opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem
appropriate. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th
Cir. 2007). The district court should then consider the
relevant § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the
sentence requested by either party. Id. When rendering a
sentence, the district court must make and place on the record
an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of
the case. Carter, 564 F.3d at 328, 330.
In explaining the chosen sentence, the “sentencing
judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court
that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.”
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). While a
district court must consider the statutory factors and explain
its sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or
discuss every factor on the record. United States v. Johnson,
445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Wykle’s
sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable, and the
district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing her to
3
204 months in prison. The district court properly determined
her guideline sentence was the mandatory minimum sentence under
the statute of 240 months, due to her prior conviction for a
felony drug offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2006). The
district court granted the Government’s motion under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(e) (2006); USSG § 5K1.1 to reduce Wykle’s sentence by
fifteen percent based on her substantial assistance.
After hearing from the parties regarding Wykle’s
motion for downward departure due to physical condition, the
district court denied the motion because there was insufficient
evidence for the court to find there were grounds for either a
departure under USSG § 5H1.4 or a variance. The district court
considered relevant § 3553(a) factors, reasonably determined
that they supported a sentence of 204 months, and adequately
explained its decision. To the extent that Wykle challenges the
district court’s decision not to depart downward, this decision
is not reviewable and we dismiss this portion of her appeal.
See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal in part, and we affirm
the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel
inform his or her client, in writing, of his or her right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
4
review. If the client 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 the client.
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
5