US v. Debra Schmidt

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00112-MBS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998906924]. [12-4121]

Appeal: 12-4121

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/01/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4121

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEBRA ANN SCHMIDT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
Margaret B. Seymour, Chief District
Judge. (1:11-cr-00112-MBS-1)

Submitted:

July 26, 2012

Decided:

August 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
Tommie DeWayne Pearson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4121

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/01/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Debra

Ann

Schmidt

pled

guilty

to

one

count

of

willfully and knowingly embezzling, stealing, and converting to
her own use money in excess of $1,000 belonging to the United
States by unlawfully applying for and claiming per diem benefits
paid by the United States Department of Energy, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 641 (2006).
probation.

Schmidt was sentenced to five years of

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following
issues: (1) whether the district court complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 when it accepted Schmidt’s guilty plea; and (2)
whether the sentence imposed by the district court pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) was unreasonable or was otherwise
imposed in violation of the law.
Because Schmidt did not move to withdraw her plea, we
review her Rule 11 hearing for plain error.

United States v.

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).

Here, we find no

error, as the magistrate judge fully complied with Rule 11 when
accepting Schmidt’s plea.

Given no indication to the contrary,

we therefore find that Schmidt’s plea was knowing and voluntary,
and,

consequently,

final

and

binding.

See

United

Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc).

2

States

v.

Appeal: 12-4121

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/01/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

Next we review Schmidt’s sentence for reasonableness
using an abuse of discretion standard.
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Gall v. United States,

The first step in this review requires

us to ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error.
(4th

Cir.

United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161

2008).

Procedural

errors

include

improperly

calculating the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to
consider

the

§

3553(a)

sentencing

factors,

sentencing

using

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
sentence.

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

procedurally

reasonable

reasonableness.
Cir.

2009).

may

Only if we find a sentence

we

consider

its

substantive

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th
Here,

we

discern

no

basis

to

conclude

that

Schmidt’s within-Guidelines sentence was either procedurally or
substantively unreasonable.

See United States v. Powell, 650

F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir.) (noting this court presumes sentence
within

applicable

Guidelines

range

to

be

reasonable),

cert.

denied, 132 S. Ct. 350 (2011).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Schmidt’s conviction and sentence.

This

court requires that counsel inform Schmidt, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Schmidt requests that a petition be filed,
3

Appeal: 12-4121

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/01/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

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 Schmidt.

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