United States v. Tucker , 274 F. App'x 271 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4679
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RAMONA OBERA TUCKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:05-cr-00416-HMH)
Submitted: January 30, 2008 Decided: April 23, 2008
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; David Calhoun Stephens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ramona Obera Tucker pled guilty to bank fraud, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1344 (2000), in 2005 and was sentenced to 144 months of
imprisonment. We vacated Tucker’s sentence and remanded her case
for resentencing, finding that the 144-month sentence, which was a
480% increase over the high end of her Sentencing Guidelines range,
was unreasonable. See United States v. Tucker, 473 F.3d 556, 564-
65 (4th Cir. 2007). On remand, the district court held another
sentencing hearing, calculated Tucker’s Sentencing Guidelines
range, listened to the arguments of counsel, and, after making
extensive findings under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2007), sentenced Tucker to a variance sentence of 72 months.
Tucker timely appeals and her counsel has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging there are no
meritorious issues on appeal but raising the following issue:
whether the district court plainly erred by sentencing Tucker to 72
months of imprisonment. In her pro se supplemental brief, Tucker
alleges that the district court failed to adequately explain its
upward variance sentencing. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
Based on the Supreme Court’s recent opinions in Gall v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007), and Kimbrough v. United
States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), we find that the district court’s
72-month sentence was reasonable, as the district court did not
- 2 -
abuse its discretion by imposing an upward variance sentence in
light of its comprehensive findings under § 3553(a) that a longer
sentence was necessary. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 591 (holding that
an appellate court reviews a sentence to determine whether it is
unreasonable with regard to § 3553(a), applying a “deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard”); Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at 570(noting that, while § 3553(a) requires the sentencing court to give
due consideration to the Guidelines, Booker allows the sentencing
court to fashion the sentence in light of other statutory
considerations); see also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468(4th Cir. 2007). Contrary to Tucker’s pro se claims, the district
court gave numerous reasons for its 72-month sentence, specifically
tying those findings to the § 3553(a) factors.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Tucker’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Tucker, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Tucker 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 Tucker. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -