US v. Janice Coxe
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JANICE COXE, 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-15)
February 20, 2009
March 9, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RAY COIT YARBOROUGH, JR., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: In accordance with a plea agreement, Janice Coxe pled guilty to conspiracy to commit marriage fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006). appeals. She was sentenced to six months in prison. Coxe now
Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the
district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and whether the sentence is unreasonable but stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal.
Coxe was advised of her right to
file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file such a brief. We affirm. Our review of the transcript of Coxe's guilty plea proceeding discloses full compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Further, we find that her sentence is reasonable. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). In See Gall v. this regard,
Coxe's advisory guideline range was 10-16 months, reflecting a total offense level of 11 and criminal history category II. The
district court granted the United States' motion for downward departure based on substantial assistance and departed downward two levels, resulting in a sentencing range of 6-12 months. The
court clearly stated its reasons for granting the Government's motion and for denying Coxe's motion for a variance. The record
reveals that, in sentencing Coxe, the district court properly calculated her guideline range, 2 treated the guidelines as
factors, and adequately explained its reasons for imposing the six-month sentence. 474 (4th Cir. 2007). We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,
meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm.
court requires counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If the client requests such a that a petition would be be
frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel=s motion must state that a copy of We dispense with oral
the motion was served on the client.
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
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?