US v. Dessie Nelson

Filing 920090728

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4813

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DESSIE RUTH NELSON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:07-cr-00451-DKC-1)

Submitted:

July 6, 2009

Decided:

July 28, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary A. Ticknor, Elkridge, Maryland, for Appellant. Jonathan Biran, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Dessie Ruth Nelson pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to bribery and income tax evasion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201 (2006) and 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (2006). district Nelson court sentenced Nelson to sixty has 386 months filed U.S. a in The

prison. in

appealed. with

Nelson's Anders are v. no

counsel California,

brief

accordance stating

738 for

(1967), appeal.

that

there

meritorious

grounds

Although advised of her right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Nelson has not done so. affirm. In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea in the district court, we review for plain error the adequacy of the guilty plea proceeding under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). United Our Finding no reversible error, we

examination of the record shows that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11. Further, Nelson's

plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and supported by a factual basis. A review of the sentencing transcript and the

presentence investigation report reveals no error in sentencing. When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 2

(2006). (2007). sentence,

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 Appellate review of a district court's imposition of a "whether inside, just outside, or significantly Id.

outside the Guidelines range," is for abuse of discretion. at 591. steps in

The district court followed the necessary procedural sentencing guidelines the Nelson, as appropriately properly range, treating calculating performing factors to the and an the

sentencing considering

advisory,

applicable assessment"

guidelines of the

"individualized

§ 3553(a)

facts of the case, and stating in open court the reasons for the sentence. 2009). United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir.

Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Nelson's conviction and sentence. This

court requires that counsel inform Nelson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Nelson 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 representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Nelson.

3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

4