US v. Stayka Doljeva
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STAYKA DOLJEVA, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00479-RBH-3)
April 20, 2009
May 11, 2009
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John D. Elliott, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Stayka Doljeva pled guilty to conspiracy to commit marriage fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006), and was sentenced to two months in prison. appeals. She now
Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 386 that U.S. there 738 are (1967), no raising two issues for but
Doljeva was advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file such a brief. After reviewing the transcript of Doljeva's Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that the district court fully
complied with the Rule.
Further, we note that there is nothing
in the record to suggest that the sentence of imprisonment, as opposed to a term of probation, resulted from collateral, We conclude
impermissible influences on the district judge. that the sentence was reasonable. 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007).
See Gall v. United States,
Finally, after a thorough review of
the record in accordance with Anders, we find that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. This writing, court of her requires right to Accordingly, we affirm. to inform his client, of in the
United States for further review.
If the client requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to 2
withdraw from representation.
Counsel's motion must state that We dispense with questions the court are and
a copy of the motion was served on the client. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before
argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?