UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4619
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WENDY MAE BROCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00120-WO-1)
Submitted: December 21, 2011 Decided: January 5, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Frank Joseph Chut, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wendy Mae Brock pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to three counts: Count 7, false statements to a bank,
18 U.S.C.A. § 1014 (West Supp. 2011); Count 8, false
representation of a social security number, 42 U.S.C.
§ 408(a)(7)(B) (2006); and Count 9, aggravated identity theft,
18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (2006), and was sentenced to 48 months
imprisonment. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following
issue: whether the district court erred by imposing a 48 month
sentence. Brock was informed of her right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
review a sentence for reasonableness, whether inside or outside
the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, applying a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 49 (2007). We first review a sentence for significant
procedural error and then evaluate the sentence for substantive
error. Id. at 51; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328
(4th Cir. 2009).
In this case, for Count 9 the district court sentenced
Brock to the mandatory minimum of 24 months imprisonment to run
2
consecutive to any other sentence. Brock does not dispute this
portion of the sentence. Instead, Brock’s Anders counsel asks
whether her sentence of 24 months for Counts 7 and 8 was
unreasonable. The court calculated Brock’s advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range for Counts 7 and 8 as 12-18 months of
imprisonment but imposed an upward variance sentence of 24
months. In imposing the variance sentence, the court expressly
analyzed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and noted: the
high number of victims (despite a relatively low loss amount in
money), the scope and continuity of Brock’s criminality
(including the complexity of some of her schemes), the need to
protect the public and to promote respect for the law, and the
need to provide deterrence. Having reviewed the record, we find
no procedural or substantive error in the court’s upward
variance sentence and that the court adequately explained its
sentence. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th
Cir. 2010).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Brock’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Brock, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Brock requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
3
may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Brock.
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
4