US v. Wanda Martin, No. 09-4291 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4291 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WANDA Y. MARTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00886-MJP-1) Submitted: August 27, 2009 Decided: October 1, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Winston D. Holliday, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wanda Y. Martin, the sole defendant in a twenty-nine count indictment charging wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (West Supp. 2009), pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement, to count twenty-two. sentenced ordered Martin restitution charitable employ. to twenty-seven in organization On appeal, the which The district court months amount Martin of imprisonment $342,991.51 defrauded while and to the in its Martin alleges that the district court gave presumptive weight to the advisory guideline sentence range in violation of Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), in rejecting counsel s request to allow Martin to serve her sentence through home detention, a half-way house, or community supervision. The record simply provides no support for the assertion that the court improperly treated the guidelines as presumptively reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. 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 2

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.