UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4121
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEBRA ANN SCHMIDT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief District
Judge. (1:11-cr-00112-MBS-1)
Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Tommie DeWayne Pearson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Debra Ann Schmidt pled guilty to one count of
willfully and knowingly embezzling, stealing, and converting to
her own use money in excess of $1,000 belonging to the United
States by unlawfully applying for and claiming per diem benefits
paid by the United States Department of Energy, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 641 (2006). Schmidt was sentenced to five years of
probation. On appeal, counsel has 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
issues: (1) whether the district court complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 when it accepted Schmidt’s guilty plea; and (2)
whether the sentence imposed by the district court pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) was unreasonable or was otherwise
imposed in violation of the law.
Because Schmidt did not move to withdraw her plea, we
review her Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Here, we find no
error, as the magistrate judge fully complied with Rule 11 when
accepting Schmidt’s plea. Given no indication to the contrary,
we therefore find that Schmidt’s plea was knowing and voluntary,
and, consequently, final and binding. See United States v.
Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
2
Next we review Schmidt’s sentence for reasonableness
using an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires
us to ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161
(4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include improperly
calculating the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to
consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, sentencing using
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Only if we find a sentence
procedurally reasonable may we consider its substantive
reasonableness. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th
Cir. 2009). Here, we discern no basis to conclude that
Schmidt’s within-Guidelines sentence was either procedurally or
substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Powell, 650
F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir.) (noting this court presumes sentence
within applicable Guidelines range to be reasonable), cert.
denied, 132 S. Ct. 350 (2011).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Schmidt’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Schmidt, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Schmidt requests that a petition be filed,
3
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 Schmidt. 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