UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4391
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JENNY C. HOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:11-cr-02121-GRA-1)
Submitted: October 2, 2012 Decided: October 30, 2012
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jenny Hood pled guilty without a plea agreement to
wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (West Supp.
2012), and was sentenced to twenty-one months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the
district court committed procedural error by failing to
adequately explain the sentence imposed. Hood was advised of
her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but she did not
do so. The Government has declined to file a brief. We affirm.
We review Hood’s sentence for reasonableness under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A sentence is procedurally
reasonable if, among other things, the court sufficiently
explains its reasons for imposing it. Id. at 49-51. While
every sentence requires an adequate explanation, when the
district court imposes a sentence within the Guidelines range,
“the explanation need not be elaborate or lengthy.”
United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010).
Because Hood argued in the district court for leniency based on
her lack of criminal history, her remorse, and her desire to pay
back the money she embezzled and move on with her life, we
2
review Hood’s sentence for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court provided an adequate explanation of Hood’s
sentence and therefore did not commit procedural error by
imposing its chosen sentence. The court considered the
particularized facts of Hood’s case and determined that the
significant amount of money Hood embezzled warranted the
sentence imposed, including a provision for restitution and a
special condition of supervised release that Hood attend an
employment program. Furthermore, the court considered arguments
from counsel, Hood’s plea for leniency, testimony from Hood’s
employer, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. Because
Hood’s sentence was within the Guidelines, the district court’s
explanation was more than sufficient. See Hernandez, 603 F.3d
at 271.
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 that counsel inform Hood, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Hood 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
3
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Hood.
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