United States v. Gloria Glisson ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4238
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GLORIA JEAN GLISSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00032-FDW-DSC-1)
Submitted: December 5, 2012 Decided: December 13, 2012
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacy A. Phipps, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne
M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gloria Jean Glisson was convicted by a jury of one
count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, three counts of bank
fraud, and one count of receipt of stolen securities, and
sentenced to ninety-seven months’ imprisonment. She appeals,
challenging her sentence, alleging that the district court erred
in denying her request for a downward departure or variance.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Glisson claims that the district court’s alleged
errors rendered her sentence unreasonable. This court reviews a
sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We
first review for significant procedural errors, including
whether the district court failed to calculate or improperly
calculated the Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as
mandatory, failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or failed
to adequately explain its chosen sentence. Id. To avoid
procedural error, the district court must make an
“individualized assessment,” wherein it applies the relevant
§ 3553(a) factors to the facts of the case before it. United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). The
district court also should address any nonfrivolous arguments
for an out-of-Guidelines sentence and explain why it rejected
those arguments. Id. If we find the sentence procedurally
2
reasonable, we then examine substantive reasonableness,
considering the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S.
at 51. If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, this
court applies a presumption of reasonableness. United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010).
Glisson’s argument that the district court erred in
denying her request for a downward departure is unreviewable.
See United States v. Carr, 271 F.3d 172, 176 (4th Cir. 2011).
However, her allegation of error in failing to grant a variance
is reviewable by this court. We find that Glisson’s sentence is
both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Despite
Glisson’s contentions to the contrary, the district court
properly considered the § 3553(a) factors, provided a detailed
individualized assessment, responded to defense counsel’s
arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence meaningfully and with
specificity, and clearly explained its chosen sentence.
Furthermore, Glisson presents no evidence to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness applicable to her within-
Guidelines sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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
3