US v. Cynthia Lemon


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4507 Doc: 43 Filed: 07/25/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4507 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CYNTHIA LEMON, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?