United States v. Baker , 81 F. App'x 783 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4252
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TAMMY ANNETTE BAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-02-111)
Submitted: October 24, 2003 Decided: December 1, 2003
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Amanda Bethea Keaveny, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Rhett DeHart, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tammy Annette Baker appeals the district court's order
sentencing her to fifteen months imprisonment following her guilty
plea to bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2000). In her
appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), counsel for Baker states that she has found no non-
frivolous issues for appeal, but raises the issue of whether
Baker’s sentence was appropriately calculated under the sentencing
guidelines.
This court reviews such a claim de novo. See United States v.
Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). Baker’s base offense
level was correctly calculated at six based on a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1344. See USSG § 2B1.1(a) (2001). Due to adjustments for
a loss in excess of $70,000 and Baker’s acceptance of
responsibility, a total offense level of twelve was accurately
calculated. See USSG §§ 2B1.1(b)(1), 3E1.1(a). The district court
also correctly sustained Baker’s objection to the calculation of
her criminal history category, thereby adjusting her to category
II. This resulted in a sentencing range of twelve to eighteen
months. See USSG Ch. 5, Pt. A, table. Baker’s sentence of fifteen
months was within that range. Accordingly, we find no error in the
application of the sentencing guidelines.
We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and find
no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the
2
judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel
inform her client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If the client
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 the client. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3