United States v. Amanda Greene , 659 F. App'x 164 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4062
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
AMANDA DARLENE GREENE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00133-WO-1)
Submitted: August 26, 2016 Decided: August 31, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS & STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Eric Lloyd Iverson, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In accordance with a written plea agreement, Amanda Darlene
Greene pled guilty to one count of theft of government property,
18 U.S.C. § 641 (2012). She received a within-Guidelines
sentence of 12 months and one day and was ordered to pay
statutorily required restitution of $162,562.40. Greene now
appeals. Her attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether
the amount of loss was correctly calculated, but concluding that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal. In addition, Greene
has filed a pro se brief. We affirm.
We first conclude that Greene’s guilty plea was knowing and
voluntary. Greene stated at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing
that she was 49 years old, had a Masters degree, and was not
under the influence of drugs or alcohol. She expressed complete
satisfaction with her attorney’s services. A factual basis for
the plea was presented to the court, Greene stated that the
factual basis was accurate, and she admitted her guilt.
Finally, the district court substantially complied with the
requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
2
With respect to sentencing, the court properly calculated
Greene’s Guidelines range, 1 considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors and the arguments of the parties, and provided a
sufficiently individualized assessment based on the facts of the
case. We conclude that the sentence is procedurally reasonable.
Additionally, given the totality of the circumstances, the
sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carter, 564
F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 2 Accordingly, we
affirm Greene’s conviction and sentence. We deny counsel’s
motion to withdraw at this time. This court requires that
counsel inform Greene, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Greene 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
1 There is no merit to Greene’s contention that the amount
of loss for which she was held accountable should not have
included social security disability payments made during an
alleged trial work period. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.471 (2015).
2 After carefully considering Greene’s pro se brief, we
conclude that none of the claims raised in that brief has merit.
3
Greene. 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