US v. Cynthia Lemon
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00760-JMC-4 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999895706].. [15-4507]
Appeal: 15-4507
Doc: 43
Filed: 07/25/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4507
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CYNTHIA LEMON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge.
(3:14-cr-00760-JMC-4)
Submitted:
July 21, 2016
Decided:
July 25, 2016
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John E. Duncan, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellant. John C.
Potterfield, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4507
Doc: 43
Filed: 07/25/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Cynthia Lemon pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to
conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1349 (2012).
imprisonment
The district court sentenced Lemon to 57 months’
and
ordered
property.
Counsel
California,
386
has
U.S.
her
to
pay
restitution
filed
a
brief
pursuant
738
(1967),
stating
that
and
to
forfeit
Anders
there
are
v.
no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Lemon’s
sentence is reasonable.
Lemon was advised of her right to file a
supplemental brief, but she has not done so.
We
review
a
sentence
for
procedural
and
substantive
reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.
Berry, 814 F.3d 192, 194-95 (4th Cir. 2016).
In determining
whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable, we consider whether
the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to
argue
for
an
appropriate
sentence,
considered
the
18
U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence based on facts that
were
not
selected
clearly
erroneous,
sentence.
Gall,
and
552
sufficiently
U.S.
at
49-51.
explained
Only
the
after
determining that a sentence is procedurally reasonable will we
consider its substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account
the totality of the circumstances.”
2
Id. at 51.
“Any sentence
Appeal: 15-4507
Doc: 43
Filed: 07/25/2016
Pg: 3 of 4
that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
presumptively [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. 2014) (citation
omitted).
Our
review
of
the
sentencing
transcript
revealed
no
procedural sentencing errors, and we conclude that Lemon has not
rebutted the presumption that her within-Guidelines sentence is
substantively
reasonable.
Additionally,
in
accordance
with
Anders, we have reviewed the remainder of the record in this case
and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.
We therefore
affirm the district court’s judgment.
We note, however, that the order of forfeiture is inaccurate.
The restitution amount ordered at sentencing was $40,813.09, but
the
figure
reported
in
the
forfeiture
order
is
$40,815.09.
According to the court’s findings at sentencing, the restitution
amount is correct, and we therefore remand for correction of the
forfeiture order.
This court requires that counsel inform Lemon, in writing, of
her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Lemon requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel
may
move
in
this
court
3
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Appeal: 15-4507
Doc: 43
representation.
Filed: 07/25/2016
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Lemon.
facts
and
materials
legal
before
Pg: 4 of 4
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
4
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?