US v. Helen Anderson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cr-00040-HMH-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999837029].. [15-4554]

Appeal: 15-4554

Doc: 27

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4554

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HELEN JEAN ANDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:14-cr-00040-HMH-1)

Submitted:

April 26, 2016

Decided:

May 31, 2016

Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4554

Doc: 27

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Helen Jean Anderson pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1349 (2012).
Guidelines

sentence

of

The district court imposed a within-

105

months’

imprisonment

Anderson to pay $407,336.86 in restitution.

and

ordered

In accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Anderson’s counsel has
filed a brief certifying that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal,

but

questioning

whether

the

district

court

provided

sufficient reasoning for its imposition of a 105-month sentence.
Although notified of her right to do so, Anderson has not filed a
pro se supplemental brief.

We affirm.

Our review of Anderson’s sentence is for reasonableness,
under an abuse of discretion standard.
U.S. 38, 46 (2007).
error.

Id.

calculating
Guidelines

at
the

as

Gall v. United States, 552

We first review for significant procedural

51.

Procedural

Sentencing

mandatory,

error

Guidelines

failing

to

includes
range,

consider

improperly

treating
the

18

the

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, and failing to adequately explain the
selected sentence. Id. Although a sentencing court need not issue
a comprehensive, detailed opinion explaining the sentence imposed,
the sentencing judge should provide an explanation sufficient “to
satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’
arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal
2

Appeal: 15-4554

Doc: 27

Filed: 05/31/2016

decisionmaking authority.”

Pg: 3 of 4

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,

356 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United
States

v.

Carter,

564

F.3d

325,

330

(“Th[e]

individualized

assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy but it must provide a
rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to
permit meaningful appellate review.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).

Our review of the record reveals that the sentencing

court properly calculated Anderson’s Guidelines range and relied
on Anderson’s extensive criminal record, the need to protect the
public, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(c), and the seriousness of
Anderson’s offense compared to the Guidelines range produced as a
result of stipulations in Anderson’s plea agreement when imposing
its

sentence.

Accordingly,

we

find

no

procedural

error

at

sentencing.
Having
substantive

found

no

procedural

reasonableness,

error,

we

“examin[ing]

the

next

review

totality

of

for
the

circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the
standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. Gomez-Jimenez,
750 F.3d 370, 383 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted),
cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 305 (2014).

Where the sentence imposed

falls within or below the properly-calculated Guidelines range,
this

court

applies

a

presumption

of

reasonableness.

States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).
3

United

Here, nothing

Appeal: 15-4554

Doc: 27

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

in the record overcomes the presumption of reasonableness attached
to the within-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This

We

court

requires that counsel inform Anderson, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Anderson 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 Anderson.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4