US v. Angela Simpson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cr-00206-MGL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999589707].. [14-4882]

Appeal: 14-4882

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4882

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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.
(8:14-cr-00206-MGL-1)

Submitted:

May 21, 2015

Decided:

May 26, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin
T.
Stepp,
Assistant
Greenville, South Carolina, for
Sherard, Assistant United States
Carolina, for Appellee.

Federal
Public
Defender,
Appellant.
Carrie Fisher
Attorney, Greenville, South

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4882

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
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),
conceding

there

are

no

meritorious

grounds

for

appeal,

but

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.

Finding no

error, we affirm.
Although we review Simpson’s sentence for reasonableness,
applying
States,

an
552

abuse-of-discretion
U.S.

38,

46

standard,

(2007),

we

see

review

Gall

v.

United

unpreserved,

structural sentencing errors for plain error.

non-

See United States

v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir. 2010).

Our review

requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.
assess

whether

the

district

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
court

properly

We first

calculated

the

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.
2

Appeal: 14-4882

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

Id. at 49–51; see Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575–76.
procedural

error,

we

reasonableness,

review

“examin[ing]

circumstances[.]”

properly

sentence

the

for

substantive

totality

of

the

United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d

212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
a

the

If we find no

calculated

“Any sentence that is within or below
Guidelines

range

is

presumptively

[substantively] reasonable” and “[s]uch 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.), cert. denied,
___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
We

conclude

substantively
calculated

that

Simpson’s

reasonable.

Simpson’s

sentence

The

Guidelines

is

district

range,

procedurally
court

listened

and

correctly

to

counsel’s

arguments, denied Simpson’s motion for a departure or variant
sentence,

afforded

adequately
sentence.

Simpson

explained

its

an

opportunity

reasons

for

to

allocute,

imposing

the

and

27-month

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.
therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This

We

court

requires counsel to inform Simpson, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

review.

If

Simpson

requests

the
that
3

United
a

States

petition

be

for

further

filed,

but

Appeal: 14-4882

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/26/2015

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
on Simpson.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4