UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4882
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANGELA DIANE SIMPSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(8:14-cr-00206-MGL-1)
Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 26, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Fisher
Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Angela Diane Simpson appeals the 27-month sentence imposed
after she pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of
devising a scheme and artifice to defraud and obtain money by
means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2012). Simpson’s attorney filed
a brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
conceding there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
raising the reasonableness of Simpson’s sentence as a possible
issue for review. Simpson has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief, despite receiving notice of her right to do so, and the
Government has declined to file a responsive brief. Finding no
error, we affirm.
Although we review Simpson’s sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse-of-discretion standard, see Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007), we review unpreserved, non-
structural sentencing errors for plain error. See United States
v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review
requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We first
assess whether the district court properly calculated the
advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth at
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012), analyzed any arguments presented by
the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
2
Id. at 49–51; see Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575–76. If we find no
procedural error, we review the sentence for substantive
reasonableness, “examin[ing] the totality of the
circumstances[.]” United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d
212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). “Any sentence that is within or below
a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
[substantively] reasonable” and “[s]uch a presumption can only
be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United
States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
We conclude that Simpson’s sentence is procedurally and
substantively reasonable. The district court correctly
calculated Simpson’s Guidelines range, listened to counsel’s
arguments, denied Simpson’s motion for a departure or variant
sentence, afforded Simpson an opportunity to allocute, and
adequately explained its reasons for imposing the 27-month
sentence. Thus, we affirm Simpson’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires counsel to inform Simpson, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Simpson requests that a petition be filed, but
3
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
on Simpson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4