US v. La'Keesha Kee

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00169-HEH-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999680346].. [14-4716]

Appeal: 14-4716

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4716

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LA’KEESHA NICOLE KEE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cr-00169-HEH-3)

Submitted:

September 30, 2015

Decided:

October 19, 2015

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amy Leigh Austin, LAW OFFICE OF AMY L. AUSTIN, PLLC, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Jasmine Hyejung
Yoon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4716

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
La’Keesha
trial,

of

Nicole

uttering

Kee

was

convicted,

counterfeit

federal

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 (2012).
to 30 months’ imprisonment.

following
reserve

a

bench

notes,

in

The district sentenced her

On appeal, Kee’s counsel has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating

that

questioning

there

are

whether

no

meritorious

sufficient

issues

evidence

for

appeal

supported

but

Kee’s

conviction and whether the district court adequately explained
its rejection of Kee’s request for a downward variant sentence. *
Counsel first questions the sufficiency of the evidence.
We review de novo the denial of a Rule 29 motion for a judgment
of acquittal.
Cir.

2010).

United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756, 762 (4th
A

defendant

challenging

evidence faces a heavy burden.

the

sufficiency

of

the

United States v. Beidler, 110

F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997).

The verdict must be sustained

when “there is substantial evidence in the record, when viewed
in the light most favorable to the government, to support the
conviction.”
Cir.

2011)

evidence

is

United States v. Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83, 93 (4th
(internal
evidence

quotation
that

a

marks

omitted).

reasonable

*

finder

“Substantial
of

fact

could

A restitution issue noted by this court has been resolved
on limited remand to the district court.

2

Appeal: 14-4716

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Id. (alteration

and internal quotation marks omitted).
In order to establish that Kee was guilty of uttering a
counterfeit note, the Government was required to prove: (1) that
Kee uttered counterfeit money; (2) that she knew the money was
counterfeit
uttered

at

the

the

time

of

counterfeit

the

money

uttering;

with

the

and

(3)

intent

that

to

she

defraud.

United States v. Leftenant, 341 F.3d 338, 347 (4th Cir. 2003).
“Fraudulent

intent

circumstances

and

may
need

be

inferred

not

be

from

proven

the
by

totality

direct

of

the

evidence.”

United States v. Ham, 998 F.2d 1247, 1254 (4th Cir. 1993).
We

conclude

conviction.

that

sufficient

evidence

supports

Kee’s

Kee participated in a counterfeit bill trafficking

organization for several months before and after the date of the
charged offense; surveillance video showed she purchased items
using cash, taking the bill she used to purchase the items from
one pocket and depositing her change in a separate pocket; a
store manager testified that the only bills that appeared on the
video to match the counterfeit bills were those used by Kee and
her accomplice; and the bills recovered from the cash register
were

identified

at

trial

as

counterfeit.

Moreover,

Kee’s

knowledge and intent could be inferred from her statements and
actions shortly before and after her arrest.
3

Appeal: 14-4716

Doc: 31

Counsel

Filed: 10/19/2015

next

Pg: 4 of 6

questions

whether

the

district

court

adequately explained its reasons for rejecting Kee’s request for
a

downward

variant

reasonableness
standard.”

sentence.

“under

a

We

review

deferential

sentences

for

abuse-of-discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

This

review entails appellate consideration of both the procedural
and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Id. at 51.

We

first ensure that the district court committed no “significant
procedural

error,”

including

improper

calculation

of

the

Guidelines range, insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)

(2012)

factors,

sentence imposed.
In

and

inadequate

explanation

of

the

Id.

evaluating

the

sentencing

court’s

explanation

of

a

selected sentence, we have consistently held that, while the
district court must consider the statutory factors and explain
the

sentence,

§ 3353(a)

it

factor

need
on

sentence

the

not

“robotically

record,

within

the

tick

particularly

properly

through”
when

calculated

the

every
court

imposes

a

Guidelines

range.

United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir.

2006).

At the same time, the district court “must make an

individualized assessment based on the facts presented.”
552 U.S. at 50.

Gall,

While the “individualized assessment need not

be elaborate or lengthy, . . . it must provide a rationale
tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit
4

Appeal: 14-4716

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/19/2015

meaningful appellate review.”

Pg: 5 of 6

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court adequately explained
its reasons for rejecting Kee’s request for a downward variance.
The court cited Kee’s heavy involvement in the counterfeiting
conspiracy, her recruitment of others to join the conspiracy,
her

significant

criminal

remorse for her actions.

history,

and

her

failure

to

show

Therefore, we perceive no procedural

error in Kee’s sentence.
If a sentence is procedurally reasonable, we then consider
whether it is substantively reasonable, “taking into account the
totality of the circumstances.”
sentence

that

Guidelines

is

range

within

is

or

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
below

presumptively

a

“Any

properly

calculated

[substantively]

reasonable.

Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors.”

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295,

306 (4th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421
(2014).
failed

After review of the record, we conclude that Kee has
to

rebut

the

presumed

reasonableness

of

her

within-

Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case, and have found no meritorious issues.
we affirm the district court’s judgment.
5

Accordingly,

This court requires

Appeal: 14-4716

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 6 of 6

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

If

Kee 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 Kee.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

6