United States v. Rodnisha Cannon

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4394
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RODNISHA SADE CANNON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-4395
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RODNISHA SADE CANNON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00313-FDW-1; 3:13-cr-00095-FDW-
1)
Submitted: January 20, 2015 Decided:
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bradley L. Henry, BREEDING & LODATO, LLC, Knoxville, Tennessee,
for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Rodnisha Sade Cannon pled guilty in accordance with a
written plea agreement to: conspiracy to commit health care
fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347, 1349 (2012); aggravated identity
theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (b) (2012); conspiracy to commit
money laundering, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h), 1957 (2012); and
attempted disposal and transfer of property to prevent seizure,
18 U.S.C. § 2232 (2012). She was sentenced to seventy-eight
months for the conspiracies and attempted disposal and transfer
and two years, consecutive, for identity theft, for an aggregate
sentence of 102 months. Cannon now appeals. Her attorney has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), questioning the validity of the guilty plea but
concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Cannon was advised of her right to file a pro se brief but has
not filed such a brief. We affirm.
After careful review, we hold that the guilty plea was
knowing and voluntary. Cannon stated at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing that her mind was clear and she was not under the
influence of drugs or alcohol. She expressed satisfaction with
her attorney’s services. Cannon admitted her guilt. She stated
that her plea was not the result of threats or promises other
than those contained in the plea agreement. Finally, the
3
district court substantially complied with the requirements of
Rule 11.
With respect to sentencing, the court properly
calculated Cannon’s Guidelines range, 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 therefore 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. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires
that counsel inform Cannon, in writing, of her right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Cannon 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
Cannon. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
4
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5