US v. Anita Ambler

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00054-FPS-JES-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999328242]. [13-4569]

Appeal: 13-4569

Doc: 49

Filed: 04/02/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4569

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANITA AMBLER, a/k/a Anita Webb,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:11-cr-00054-FPS-JES-1)

Submitted:

March 28, 2014

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

April 2, 2014

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen D. Herndon, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Randolph J.
Bernard, John C. Parr, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4569

Doc: 49

Filed: 04/02/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Anita Ambler was convicted of
twenty-five fraud related offenses and sentenced to 87 months’
imprisonment.
court’s

denial

counsel.

She
of

appeals,
her

challenging

pre-trial

motion

only
for

the

district

substitution

of

We affirm.
Although the district court applied the wrong standard

in ruling on the motion for substitution of counsel, compare
United States v. Mullen, 32 F.3d 891 (4th Cir. 1994) (explaining
factors court of appeals applies to review decision of district
court), with Martel v. Clair, 132 S. Ct. 1276, 1284-87 (2012)
(explaining standard used by district courts to decide motions
for substitution), we have reviewed the record and the briefs
filed

by

the

parties,

and

we

find

no

reversible

error.

Accordingly, we affirm Ambler’s conviction and sentence.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2