UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4369
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBIN HUSSEY GARNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00308-TDS-1)
Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henderson Hill, Executive Director, Thomas N. Cochran, FEDERAL
DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, Acting United States
Attorney, Robert M. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robin Hussey Garner pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to three counts of bank fraud and one count of
making false entries, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1005, 1344(2) (2006). She
was sentenced to forty-three months of imprisonment and ordered
to pay restitution in the amount of $267,344. Garner timely
appealed.
Garner’s only claim on appeal is that the district
court committed procedural error at sentencing by failing to
address her arguments, both before and during the sentencing
hearing, for a below-guidelines sentence based on her health
issues. We affirm.
We review Garner’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).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court provided an adequate explanation of Garner’s
sentence and therefore did not commit procedural error by
2
imposing its chosen sentence. The court considered the
particularized facts of Garner’s case and determined that the
significant amount of money involved, Garner’s abuse of a
position of trust, and the duration of the fraudulent activity
warranted the sentence imposed. Furthermore, the court adopted
the presentence report which considered Garner’s physical and
mental condition, and specifically stated that it had taken into
account all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors in
determining a sentence. Because Garner’s sentence was within
the advisory Guidelines range, the district court’s explanation
was more than sufficient. See Hernandez, 603 F.3d at 271.
Accordingly, we affirm Garner’s sentence. 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