United States v. Annette Stoker ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4422
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANNETTE STOKER, a/k/a Teresa Annette Stoker,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00366-TDS-1)
Submitted: March 13, 2013 Decided: March 18, 2013
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Annette Stoker pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to two counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1344(2), 2 (2006). The district court sentenced Stoker to
forty-one months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning the reasonableness of the sentence. Stoker was
informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
she has not done so. The Government declined to file a
responsive brief. Following a careful review of the record, we
affirm.
Because Stoker did not move in the district court to
withdraw her guilty plea, we review the plea hearing for plain
error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.
2002). To prevail under this standard, Stoker must establish
that an error occurred, was plain, and affected her substantial
rights. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th
Cir. 2009). Our review of the record establishes that the
district court fully complied with the requirements of Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and ensured that Stoker’s plea
was knowing and voluntary.
We review Stoker’s sentence under a deferential abuse-
of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
2
(2007). This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th
Cir. 2010). After determining whether the district court
correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, we must
decide whether the court considered the § 3553(a) factors,
analyzed the arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at
575-76; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.
2009).
Once we have determined that the sentence is free of
procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the
circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575.
If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we
apply a presumption on appeal that the sentence is
reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217
(4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption is rebutted only if the
defendant demonstrates “that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v.
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court committed neither
procedural nor substantive error in sentencing. The court fully
3
evaluated and resolved Stoker’s objections to the presentence
report. Upon resolution of the objections, the court accurately
calculated and considered as advisory Stoker’s amended
Guidelines range. The court then heard argument from counsel
and allocution from Stoker. The district court considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and explained that the
within-Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of the
extensive nature of Stoker’s fraudulent scheme, the number of
victims affected, and the need to provide adequate deterrence.
Counsel does not offer any grounds to rebut the presumption on
appeal that Stoker’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable and our review reveals none. Accordingly, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
sentencing Stoker.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Stoker’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Stoker, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Stoker 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 Stoker.
4
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
5