US v. Shiloh Bennett, No. 09-4182 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4182 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHILOH RANA BENNETT, a/k/a Regina Dianne Bennett, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:08-cr-00206-HMH-2) Submitted: November 30, 2009 Decided: December 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shiloh Rana Bennett pled guilty to uttering counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 513(a) & 2 (2006), and fraud with false documents, U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(3) & 2 (2006). in violation 18 The district court sentenced Bennett to concurrent terms of thirty months in prison. timely appealed. of Bennett Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), finding no meritorious grounds for appeal but reasonable. questioning whether Bennett s sentence was Bennett was advised of, but did not exercise, her right to file a pro se supplemental brief. We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 This review requires appellate consideration of both the procedural Id. After and substantive determining reasonableness whether the district of a sentence. court properly calculated the defendant s advisory guidelines range, we must then § assess 3553(a) whether factors, the district analyzed any court arguments considered presented the by parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. the Id. at 50-51; see United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). made an presented. The record must establish that the district court individualized assessment Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 2 based on the facts We find no error by the district court in calculating Bennett s guidelines range. Moreover, the court s statements at Bennett s sentencing hearing reflect an individualized assessment of the facts pertaining to her sentence. find the below-guidelines sentence to be We also substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Bennett, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Bennett requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Bennett. 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
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.
