US v. John Womack, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00176-CCE-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999066969]. [12-4779]

Appeal: 12-4779

Doc: 20

Filed: 03/19/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4779

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN WOMACK, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00176-CCE-1)

Submitted:

March 8, 2013

Decided:

March 19, 2013

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Senior Litigator, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 12-4779

Doc: 20

Filed: 03/19/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John Womack, Jr., appeals the forty-one-month sentence
imposed after his guilty plea to mail fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1341 (2006), and making false statements, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1033(a)(1) (2006).

Womack’s counsel submitted a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious issues for review but
questioning the reasonableness of Womack’s sentence.

Womack was

advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has
not done so.

We affirm.

This

court

reasonableness,

reviews

applying

an

Womack’s

sentence

abuse-of-discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
consideration

of

both

the

procedural

reasonableness of the sentence.
F.3d

572,

confirms

575

(4th

that

Cir.

Womack’s

within

650

F.3d

correctly

388,

2010).

Our

calculated

This requires

and

review

within-Guidelines

395

standard.

substantive

Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592

procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Powell,

for

(4th

Cir.)

Guidelines

of

the

sentence

record

is

both

See United States v.

(stating
range

that

is

sentence

presumptively

reasonable on appeal), 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 the district court’s judgment.
2

This court

Appeal: 12-4779

Doc: 20

Filed: 03/19/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

requires that counsel inform Womack, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

review.

If

Womack

Court

of

requests

the
that

United
a

States

petition

be

for

further

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Womack.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3