UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4238
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESSICA ORDONEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00071-RJC-1)
Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
D. Baker McIntyre III, Charlotte, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jessica Ordonez appeals her 24-month sentence imposed
following her guilty plea to tax evasion, in violation of 26
U.S.C. § 7201 (2012), and aiding and assisting in the
preparation and presentation of a false tax return, in violation
of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) (2012). On appeal, Ordonez’s counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in
calculating Ordonez’s sentence. Ordonez has not filed a
supplemental pro se brief despite being advised of her right to
do so. Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.
The offense, which involved between $200,000 and $400,000
in tax loss, called for a base offense level of 18. U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2T1.4(a)(1), 2T4.1(G) (2014).
Ordonez received a two-level enhancement because she was in the
business of preparing tax returns. USSG § 2T1.4(b)(1)(B). She
also received a three-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility. USSG § 3E1.1(a), (b). Her total offense level
of 17 and criminal history category of I yielded a Guidelines
range of 24 to 30 months in prison, and neither party objected
to this calculation. Thus, we conclude that the district court
properly calculated Ordonez’s Sentencing Guidelines range.
2
Moreover, we have reviewed the sentence and conclude that
it is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The sentence
is procedurally reasonable inasmuch as the district court
properly calculated the applicable Guidelines range and
appropriately explained the sentence and its reasons for denying
Ordonez’s request for a downward departure in the context of the
relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Further, the within-Guidelines
sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable, United
States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 421 (2014), and we discern no basis to rebut that
presumption.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
This court requires that counsel inform Ordonez, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Ordonez 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 Ordonez. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4