United States v. Thompson ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SANDRA BANKS THOMPSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-03-454)
Submitted: April 19, 2006 Decided: May 9, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna
Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sandra Banks Thompson pled guilty on February 3, 2004, to
conspiracy to commit loan, mail, wire, and bank fraud, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000). The district court imposed a sentence
of twenty-six months from the twenty-four to thirty month range
calculated under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2004)
(“USSG”), to be followed by three years of supervised release. On
appeal, this court granted Thompson’s motion for severance from her
numerous codefendants, affirmed her conviction, vacated her
sentence, and granted her motion to remand for resentencing in
light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). United
States v. Thompson, 127 F. App’x 658 (4th Cir. 2005).
On remand, the district court announced that resentencing
would be in accordance with Booker and this court’s decision in
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005), and that it
would calculate the guideline range with all appropriate
enhancements, consider the advisory guidelines and the relevant
sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2005), and impose a sentence. The district court found that the
guidelines range remained the same as the original calculation,
twenty-four to thirty months. The district court then allowed the
defense to present witnesses, and heard argument from both sides
regarding the sentencing factors described in § 3553(a).
- 2 -
The district court imposed a sentence of fifteen months.
Thompson appeals that sentence and her counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that
in his opinion there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
raising as a potential issue whether the district court properly
computed the amount of loss in calculating the guideline range.
The Government has not cross-appealed, and has filed no response to
Thompson’s brief.
After the decision in Booker, a sentencing court is no
longer bound by the range prescribed in the sentencing guidelines.
See Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. In determining a sentence
post-Booker, sentencing courts are still required to calculate and
consider the defendant’s guideline range and to consider that range
along with the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a). Id. We
will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is both reasonable and
within the statutory maximum. Id. at 546-47.
Here, the district court, as required, considered both
the guideline range and the § 3553(a) factors when imposing
sentence. The fifteen-month sentence is with the statutory maximum
of five years. See 18 U.S.C. § 371. As Thompson stipulated to the
amount of loss in the district court, we conclude that this claim
entitles her to no relief. The district court thoroughly explained
its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors and its reasons for
selecting the sentence imposed, which we conclude is reasonable.
- 3 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm Thompson’s sentence. We deny counsel’s
motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel inform his
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 renew his motion 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
- 4 -