US v. Dessie Nelson, No. 08-4813 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4813 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DESSIE RUTH NELSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:07-cr-00451-DKC-1) Submitted: July 6, 2009 Decided: July 28, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary A. Ticknor, Elkridge, Maryland, for Appellant. Jonathan Biran, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dessie Ruth Nelson pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to bribery and income tax evasion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201 (2006) and 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (2006). district Nelson court appealed. accordance stating sentenced with that Nelson Nelson s Anders there are v. to sixty counsel has California, no meritorious months filed 386 in a The prison. brief in U.S. 738 (1967), grounds for appeal. Although advised of her right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Nelson has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea in the district court, we review for plain error the adequacy of the guilty plea proceeding under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our examination of the record shows that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11. Further, Nelson s plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and supported by a factual basis. A review of the sentencing transcript and the presentence investigation report reveals no error in sentencing. When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 2 (2006). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). Appellate review of a district court s imposition of a sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range, is for abuse of discretion. at 591. steps Id. The district court followed the necessary procedural in sentencing sentencing guidelines considering the individualized Nelson, as appropriately advisory, applicable assessment properly guidelines of the treating calculating range, § 3553(a) performing factors to the and an the facts of the case, and stating in open court the reasons for the sentence. 2009). United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Nelson s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Nelson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Nelson 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 Nelson. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
