US v. Debra Mose
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cr-00006-GMG-RWT-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency.  [16-4408]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
DEBRA M. MOSES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief
District Judge. (3:16-cr-00006-GMG-RWT-1)
December 15, 2016
December 19, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
following her guilty plea to mail fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1341 (2012).
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
the substantive reasonableness of the selected sentence.
filed a pro se supplemental brief in which she asserts that
counsel was ineffective at sentencing. *
When reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, we apply “an
38, 51 (2007).
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
We first examine the sentence for “significant
If there is none, we “then consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence . . . , tak[ing] into
account the totality of the circumstances.”
We presume on
appeal that a sentence within the Sentencing Guidelines range
established by the district court is substantively reasonable.
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
An appellant rebuts that presumption only “by showing that the
Although Moses points to several ways in which she asserts
deficient, ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear
on this record.
Thus, Moses’ argument is more appropriately
raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 & n.4 (4th Cir.
Pg: 3 of 4
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) [(2012)] factors.”
We conclude that Moses has not rebutted the presumption of
reasonableness accorded to her within-Guidelines sentence.
transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals that the district
court evaluated the totality of the circumstances—including the
specific factors emphasized by Moses on appeal—prior to imposing
The court nonetheless concluded that, in light of the
seriousness of the offense conduct underlying Moses’ conviction,
a 24-month sentence was appropriate.
factors on appeal.
We will not reweigh these
See United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669,
extremely broad discretion when determining the weight to be
given each of the § 3553(a) factors”).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.
therefore affirm the district court’s second amended criminal
This court requires that counsel inform Moses, in
United States for further review.
If Moses 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 Moses.
We dispense with
Pg: 4 of 4
argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?