United States v. Sandra Lara

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4239

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

SANDRA LARA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:09-cr-00232-TLW-5)

Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kathy Price Elmore, ORR ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Sandra Lara pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea

agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

and to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty

grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2012) and 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The

district court sentenced Lara to 135 months’ imprisonment, which

was the bottom of her advisory Guidelines range. Counsel for

Lara has filed this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious

grounds for appeal. Although advised of her right to do so,

Lara has declined to file a pro se supplemental brief. The

Government has not filed a response brief. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

We have reviewed the transcript of Lara’s Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11 hearing and conclude that Lara’s guilty plea was

knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent basis in

fact. We thus affirm Lara’s conviction.

We next consider the reasonableness of Lara’s

sentence. When determining a sentence, the district court must

calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider

it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) (2012). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49–50

(2007). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a

2
sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly

outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id.

at 41.

The district court followed the necessary procedural

steps in sentencing Lara, appropriately treating the Sentencing

Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the

applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a)

sentencing factors. The court provided sufficient reasoning for

the sentence. Furthermore, the within-Guidelines sentence is

presumptively substantively reasonable. See United States v.

Bynum, 604 F.3d 161, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2010). Neither counsel

nor Lara offer any ground upon which to question the substantive

reasonableness of Lara’s sentence, and we discern none. We thus

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

imposing the chosen sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Lara, in writing, of her

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

further review. If Lara requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

3
was served on Lara. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED