US v. Annette Stoker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00366-TDS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999065850].. [12-4422]

Appeal: 12-4422

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/18/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4422

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANNETTE STOKER, a/k/a Teresa Annette Stoker,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00366-TDS-1)

Submitted:

March 13, 2013

Decided:

March 18, 2013

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greensboro,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4422

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/18/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Annette

Stoker

pleaded

guilty

pursuant

to

a

plea

agreement to two counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1344(2), 2 (2006).

The district court sentenced Stoker to

forty-one months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, counsel has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning

the

reasonableness

of

the

sentence.

Stoker

was

informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
she

has

not

done

responsive brief.

so.

The

Government

declined

to

file

a

Following a careful review of the record, we

affirm.
Because Stoker did not move in the district court to
withdraw her guilty plea, we review the plea hearing for plain
error.

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.

2002).

To prevail under this standard, Stoker must establish

that an error occurred, was plain, and affected her substantial
rights.
Cir.

United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th

2009).

Our

review

of

the

record

establishes

that

the

district court fully complied with the requirements of Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and ensured that Stoker’s plea
was knowing and voluntary.
We review Stoker’s sentence under a deferential abuseof-discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
2

Appeal: 12-4422

Doc: 31

(2007).

This

procedural

decide

requires

consideration

substantive

After

calculated

whether

analyzed

Pg: 3 of 5

of

both
of

reasonableness

the
the

Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th

2010).

correctly

review

and

sentence.
Cir.

Filed: 03/18/2013

the

the

determining
the

whether

advisory

court

district

Guidelines

considered

arguments

the

presented

the
by

range,

§ 3553(a)
the

sufficiently explained the selected sentence.

court

we

must

factors,

parties,

and

Lynn, 592 F.3d at

575-76; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.
2009).
Once we have determined that the sentence is free of
procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of
the

sentence,

“tak[ing]

circumstances.”

into

account

the

totality

of

the

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575.

If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we
apply

a

presumption

reasonable.

on

appeal

that

the

sentence

is

United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217

(4th Cir. 2010).

Such a presumption is rebutted only if the

defendant demonstrates “that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured

against

Montes-Pineda,

the

445

§ 3553(a)

F.3d

375,

factors.”

379

(4th

United

Cir.

2006)

States

v.

(internal

quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court committed neither
procedural nor substantive error in sentencing.
3

The court fully

Appeal: 12-4422

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/18/2013

Pg: 4 of 5

evaluated and resolved Stoker’s objections to the presentence
report.

Upon resolution of the objections, the court accurately

calculated

and

considered

Guidelines range.

as

advisory

Stoker’s

amended

The court then heard argument from counsel

and allocution from Stoker.

The district court considered the

18

factors

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)

within-Guidelines

(2006)

sentence

was

and

warranted

explained
in

light

that

the

of

the

extensive nature of Stoker’s fraudulent scheme, the number of
victims affected, and the need to provide adequate deterrence.
Counsel does not offer any grounds to rebut the presumption on
appeal that Stoker’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable

and

our

review

reveals

none.

Accordingly,

we

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
sentencing Stoker.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We therefore affirm Stoker’s conviction and sentence.

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

If Stoker 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 Stoker.
4

Appeal: 12-4422

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/18/2013

Pg: 5 of 5

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

5