US v. Kimberly Ann Jone
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00310-TDS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999246476].. [13-4313]
Appeal: 13-4313
Doc: 26
Filed: 11/25/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4313
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KIMBERLY ANN JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00310-TDS-1)
Submitted:
November 21, 2013
Decided:
November 25, 2013
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Frank Joseph Chut, Jr., Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greensboro,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-4313
Doc: 26
Filed: 11/25/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Kimberly Ann Jones pled
guilty to two counts of bank fraud and one count of aggravated
identity theft.
imprisonment.
Anders
v.
The district court sentenced her to 32 months’
Jones’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with
California,
386
U.S.
738
(1967),
stating
that,
in
counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning
the
propriety
of
reasonableness of the sentence.
the
guilty
plea
and
the
Although advised of her right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, Jones has not done so.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In the absence of a motion in the district court to
withdraw a guilty plea, this court’s review of the plea colloquy
is for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517,
525 (4th Cir. 2002).
After reviewing the plea agreement and the
transcript of the plea hearing, we conclude that the district
court fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P.
11, and that Jones’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.
We have reviewed Jones’s sentence and conclude that
the sentence imposed was reasonable.
See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381,
387 (4th Cir. 2010).
The district court followed the necessary
procedural steps in sentencing Jones, appropriately treated the
Sentencing
Guidelines
as
advisory,
2
properly
calculated
and
Appeal: 13-4313
Doc: 26
considered
Filed: 11/25/2013
the
applicable
Pg: 3 of 3
Guidelines
range,
and
weighed
the
relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors in light of Jones’s
individual characteristics and history.
district
court
did
chosen sentence.
not
abuse
its
We conclude that the
discretion
in
imposing
the
See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate
presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
writing,
This
of
court
the
requires
right
to
that
petition
United States for further review.
counsel
the
inform
Supreme
Jones,
Court
of
in
the
If Jones 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 Jones.
We dispense with
oral
contentions
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
this
court
are
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
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?