UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4159
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DENISE YVONNE ALEXANDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:10-cr-00735-TLW-1)
Submitted: October 13, 2011 Decided: October 17,2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States
Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Denise Yvonne
Alexander pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50
kilograms or more of marijuana. She was sentenced to 21 months
in prison. On appeal, Alexander’s attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether Alexander’s plea was valid and whether the
district court provided appropriate reasoning for the chosen
sentence. Counsel concludes, however, that the issues are
without merit. Alexander was advised of her right to file a pro
se supplemental brief but did not file such a brief. We affirm.
After reviewing the transcript of Alexander’s Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 proceeding, we conclude that the district court
fully complied with Rule 11. Further, Alexander’s plea was
knowing and voluntary and not the result of threats or any
promises other than those in the plea agreement. Finally, the
district court determined that there was a factual basis for the
plea.
Next, our review of the record convinces us that the
district court provided appropriate reasoning for Alexander’s
sentence. The court was required to make an individualized
assessment in imposing sentence and sufficiently state its
reasons for the chosen sentence. See United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, the court explicitly
2
considered the statutory factors and Alexander’s request for a
variance on the record and weighed the seriousness of the crime
against the mitigating circumstances. Thus, we find no
procedural error in the imposition of sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel inform
Alexander, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Alexander
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move for
leave to withdraw at that time. Counsel’s motion must state
that a copy was served on Alexander. 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
3