US v. Angela Simpson
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cr-00206-MGL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [14-4882]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
ANGELA DIANE SIMPSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
May 21, 2015
May 26, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Greenville, South Carolina, for
Sherard, Assistant United States
Carolina, for Appellee.
Attorney, Greenville, South
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Angela Diane Simpson appeals the 27-month sentence imposed
after she pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of
devising a scheme and artifice to defraud and obtain money by
means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2012).
Simpson’s attorney filed
a brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
raising the reasonableness of Simpson’s sentence as a possible
issue for review.
Simpson has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief, despite receiving notice of her right to do so, and the
Government has declined to file a responsive brief.
error, we affirm.
Although we review Simpson’s sentence for reasonableness,
structural sentencing errors for plain error.
See United States
v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir. 2010).
requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth at
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012), analyzed any arguments presented by
the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
Pg: 3 of 4
Id. at 49–51; see Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575–76.
United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d
212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
If we find no
“Any sentence that is within or below
[substantively] reasonable” and “[s]uch a presumption can only
be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
arguments, denied Simpson’s motion for a departure or variant
Thus, we affirm Simpson’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
requires counsel to inform Simpson, in writing, of the right to
Pg: 4 of 4
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials
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?