US v. Jessica Ordonez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00071-RJC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999737530]. [15-4238]

Appeal: 15-4238

Doc: 30

Filed: 01/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4238

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESSICA ORDONEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00071-RJC-1)

Submitted:

January 14, 2016

Decided:

January 19, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

D. Baker McIntyre III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4238

Doc: 30

Filed: 01/19/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jessica

Ordonez

appeals

her

24-month

sentence

imposed

following her guilty plea to tax evasion, in violation of 26
U.S.C.

§ 7201

(2012),

and

aiding

and

assisting

in

the

preparation and presentation of a false tax return, in violation
of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) (2012).

On appeal, Ordonez’s counsel has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal

but

calculating

questioning
Ordonez’s

whether

the

sentence.

district
Ordonez

court

has

erred

not

filed

in
a

supplemental pro se brief despite being advised of her right to
do so.

Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.

The offense, which involved between $200,000 and $400,000
in

tax

loss,

Sentencing

called

Guidelines

for

a

base

Manual

offense

level

§§ 2T1.4(a)(1),

of

18.

2T4.1(G)

U.S.
(2014).

Ordonez received a two-level enhancement because she was in the
business of preparing tax returns.
also

received

responsibility.

a

three-level

USSG § 2T1.4(b)(1)(B).

reduction

USSG § 3E1.1(a), (b).

for

acceptance

She
of

Her total offense level

of 17 and criminal history category of I yielded a Guidelines
range of 24 to 30 months in prison, and neither party objected
to this calculation.

Thus, we conclude that the district court

properly calculated Ordonez’s Sentencing Guidelines range.

2

Appeal: 15-4238

Doc: 30

Filed: 01/19/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

Moreover, we have reviewed the sentence and conclude that
it is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
is

procedurally

properly

reasonable

calculated

the

inasmuch

as

applicable

the

The sentence
district

Guidelines

court

range

and

appropriately explained the sentence and its reasons for denying
Ordonez’s request for a downward departure in the context of the
relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors.
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
sentence

is

presumptively

See Gall v. United

Further, the within-Guidelines

substantively

reasonable,

United

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 421 (2014), and we discern no basis to rebut that
presumption.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

This court requires that counsel inform Ordonez, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Ordonez 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 Ordonez.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

3

Appeal: 15-4238

Doc: 30

materials

before

Filed: 01/19/2016

this

court

Pg: 4 of 4

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4