US v. Chandra Spigner
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHANDRA SPIGNER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00665-MBS-1)
May 21, 2010
June 18, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Winston David Holliday, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Chandra Spigner pled guilty to embezzlement, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 657 (West Supp. 2009).
court sentenced her to thirty-seven months of imprisonment, the bottom of the advisory sentencing guidelines range. On appeal,
Spigner's counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his view,
there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
however, whether the district court fully complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting
Spigner's guilty plea and whether the court adequately explained the chosen sentence. Spigner filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Counsel questions whether the district court fully We the 11.
complied with Rule 11 in accepting Spigner's guilty plea. have carefully court reviewed fully the record with and conclude of that Rule
Moreover, the district court ensured that Spigner's guilty plea Spigner asserts that counsel provided ineffective assistance. This court "may address [claims of ineffective assistance] on direct appeal only if the lawyer's ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record." United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that counsel's ineffectiveness does not conclusively appear from the record. Thus, we decline to review Spigner's ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal.
was knowing and voluntary and supported by a sufficient factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 We therefore affirm Spigner's conviction. counsel questions whether the district court
(4th Cir. 1991). Next,
provided an individualized explanation for the sentence imposed. An appellate court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). the Id. procedural and
This review requires consideration of both substantive reasonableness of a sentence.
This court must assess whether the district court properly
calculated the advisory guidelines range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
Id. at 49-50; see United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). If there is no procedural error, the
appellate court reviews the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, "examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a)." United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216
(4th Cir. 2010). Here, Spigner preserved her challenge to the adequacy of the court's explanation of the chosen sentence by arguing in 3
Lynn, 592 F.3d at 578.
Thus, we review her claim for Our review of the record
an abuse of discretion.
Id. at 579.
on appeal convinces us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in explaining the chosen sentence. Id. at 576 ("[I]n
explaining a sentencing decision, a court need not robotically tick through a § 3553(a)'s every subsection, particularly when
marks and citation omitted). 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. We deny
Spigner's motion to appoint new counsel.
This court requires
that counsel inform his client, in writing, of the right to petition review. the Supreme Court of the United States for further
If the client 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. was served on
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof the client. 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 4
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?