United States v. Angela Simpson

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4882

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

ANGELA DIANE SIMPSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(8:14-cr-00206-MGL-1)

Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 26, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Fisher
Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Angela Diane Simpson appeals the 27-month sentence imposed

after she pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of

devising a scheme and artifice to defraud and obtain money by

means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2012). Simpson’s attorney filed

a brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

conceding there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but

raising the reasonableness of Simpson’s sentence as a possible

issue for review. Simpson has not filed a pro se supplemental

brief, despite receiving notice of her right to do so, and the

Government has declined to file a responsive brief. Finding no

error, we affirm.

Although we review Simpson’s sentence for reasonableness,

applying an abuse-of-discretion standard, see Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007), we review unpreserved, non-

structural sentencing errors for plain error. See United States

v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review

requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive

reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We first

assess whether the district court properly calculated the

advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth at

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012), analyzed any arguments presented by

the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.

2
Id. at 49–51; see Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575–76. If we find no

procedural error, we review the sentence for substantive

reasonableness, “examin[ing] the totality of the

circumstances[.]” United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d

212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). “Any sentence that is within or below

a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively

[substantively] reasonable” and “[s]uch a presumption can only

be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when

measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).

We conclude that Simpson’s sentence is procedurally and

substantively reasonable. The district court correctly

calculated Simpson’s Guidelines range, listened to counsel’s

arguments, denied Simpson’s motion for a departure or variant

sentence, afforded Simpson an opportunity to allocute, and

adequately explained its reasons for imposing the 27-month

sentence. Thus, we affirm Simpson’s sentence.

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 counsel to inform Simpson, in writing, of the right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If Simpson requests that a petition be filed, but

3
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served

on Simpson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED