Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 178 views

    United States v. Angela Simpson, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Angela Diane Simpson appealed her 27-month sentence for defrauding others through false pretenses. 2) The appellate court reviewed her sentence and found it to be procedurally and substantively reasonable. 3) The district court correctly calculated Simpson's sentencing guidelines range, considered the appropriate factors, allowed arguments from both sides, and sufficiently explained its reasoning for the sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Angela Simpson, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    178 views4 pages
    1) Angela Diane Simpson appealed her 27-month sentence for defrauding others through false pretenses. 2) The appellate court reviewed her sentence and found it to be procedurally and substantively reasonable. 3) The district court correctly calculated Simpson's sentencing guidelines range, considered the appropriate factors, allowed arguments from both sides, and sufficiently explained its reasoning for the sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-05-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4882

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Angela Diane Simpson appealed her 27-month sentence for defrauding others through false pretenses. 2) The appellate court reviewed her sentence and found it to be procedurally and substantively reasonable. 3) The district court correctly calculated Simpson's sentencing guidelines range, considered the appropriate factors, allowed arguments from both sides, and sufficiently explained its reasoning for the sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    178 views4 pages

    United States v. Angela Simpson, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Angela Diane Simpson appealed her 27-month sentence for defrauding others through false pretenses. 2) The appellate court reviewed her sentence and found it to be procedurally and substantively reasonable. 3) The district court correctly calculated Simpson's sentencing guidelines range, considered the appropriate factors, allowed arguments from both sides, and sufficiently explained its reasoning for the sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-4882

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANGELA DIANE SIMPSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.
    Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
    (8:14-cr-00206-MGL-1)

    Submitted:

    May 21, 2015

    Decided:

    May 26, 2015

    Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Benjamin
    T.
    Stepp,
    Assistant
    Greenville, South Carolina, for
    Sherard, Assistant United States
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Federal
    Public
    Defender,
    Appellant.
    Carrie Fisher
    Attorney, Greenville, South

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Angela Diane Simpson appeals the 27-month sentence imposed
    after she pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of
    devising a scheme and artifice to defraud and obtain money by
    means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, in
    violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 (2012).

    Simpsons attorney filed

    a brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),


    conceding

    there

    are

    no

    meritorious

    grounds

    for

    appeal,

    but

    raising the reasonableness of Simpsons sentence as a possible


    issue for review.

    Simpson has not filed a pro se supplemental

    brief, despite receiving notice of her right to do so, and the


    Government has declined to file a responsive brief.

    Finding no

    error, we affirm.
    Although we review Simpsons sentence for reasonableness,
    applying
    States,

    an
    552

    abuse-of-discretion
    U.S.

    38,

    46

    standard,

    (2007),

    we

    see

    review

    Gall

    v.

    United

    unpreserved,

    structural sentencing errors for plain error.

    non-

    See United States

    v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 57576 (4th Cir. 2010).

    Our review

    requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive


    reasonableness of the sentence.
    assess

    whether

    the

    district

    Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.


    court

    properly

    We first

    calculated

    the

    advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth at


    18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2012), analyzed any arguments presented by
    the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
    2

    Id. at 4951; see Lynn, 592 F.3d at 57576.


    procedural

    error,

    we

    reasonableness,

    review

    examin[ing]

    circumstances[.]

    properly

    sentence

    the

    for

    substantive

    totality

    of

    the

    United States v. MendozaMendoza, 597 F.3d

    212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).


    a

    the

    If we find no

    calculated

    Any sentence that is within or below


    Guidelines

    range

    is

    presumptively

    [substantively] reasonable and [s]uch a presumption can only


    be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
    measured

    against

    the

    18

    U.S.C.

    3553(a)

    factors.

    United

    States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
    ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
    We

    conclude

    substantively
    calculated

    that

    Simpsons

    reasonable.

    Simpsons

    sentence

    The

    Guidelines

    is

    district

    range,

    procedurally
    court

    listened

    and

    correctly

    to

    counsels

    arguments, denied Simpsons motion for a departure or variant


    sentence,

    afforded

    adequately
    sentence.

    Simpson

    explained

    its

    an

    opportunity

    reasons

    for

    to

    allocute,

    imposing

    the

    and

    27-month

    Thus, we affirm Simpsons sentence.

    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in


    this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    therefore

    affirm

    the

    district

    courts

    judgment.

    This

    We

    court

    requires counsel to inform Simpson, in writing, of the right to


    petition

    the

    Supreme

    Court

    of

    review.

    If

    Simpson

    requests

    the
    that
    3

    United
    a

    States

    petition

    be

    for

    further

    filed,

    but

    counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then


    counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation.
    Counsels motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
    on Simpson.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts

    and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials


    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like