US v. Mary Anderson, No. 09-4598 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4598 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARY ALICE ANDERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-00025-GRA-1) Submitted: March 29, 2010 Decided: May 5, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, 1 and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. 1 Judge Michael was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Mary Alice Anderson pled guilty without a plea agreement to four counts of fraudulently using social security numbers, 42 U.S.C.A. § 408(a)(7)(B) (West Supp. 2009), and one count of aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1028A(a)(1) (West Supp. 2009). the fraudulent She was sentenced to one day, concurrent, on use identity theft. charges, and two She now appeals. years, consecutive, for Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning stating whether that there Anderson s are no sentence meritorious is reasonable issues for but appeal. Anderson was notified of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not filed such a brief. Our discloses review full of the We affirm. compliance transcript with of Fed. the R. plea colloquy Crim. P. 11. Furthermore, the record reveals that Anderson entered her plea voluntarily and knowingly and that there was a factual basis for the plea. We have identified no meritorious appellate issues related to the convictions. Turning reasonableness, to Anderson s applying an sentence, our review abuse-of-discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). is for standard. The one-day sentence on the fraudulent use counts falls within Anderson s advisory Guidelines range of 0-6 months; we afford a presumption 3 of reasonableness United States Additionally, to Go, v. the this 517 within-Guidelines F.3d consecutive, 216, 218 two-year sentence. (4th Cir. sentence for See 2008). identity See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1028A(a)(1), theft was statutorily mandated. (b)(2) (West Supp. 2009). A statutorily required sentence . . . is per se reasonable. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 743 (2008). In apply the sentencing 18 U.S.C. Anderson, § 3553(a) the (2006) explain the sentence, as Gall requires. 51. Although the court did not district court sentencing did factors not or See Gall, 552 U.S. at place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts before it, United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009), the parties did not object to this error in the district court. 2 Anderson was not eligible for a sentence of probation. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1028A(b)(1) (West Supp. 2009). Further, she received a sentence at the lowest end of her advisory Guidelines range for statutorily Accordingly, the fraudulent required the use consecutive error did not 2 offenses, sentence affect and for received identify Anderson s the theft. substantial At sentencing, Anderson requested a within-Guidelines sentence--specifically, a sentence of one day--on the fraudulent use counts, to be followed by a two-year sentence for identity theft. 4 rights, and we decline to recognize it. See United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 343 (4th Cir. 2008) (stating plain error standard of review), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 943 (2009). In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the record for any meritorious issues and have found none. We therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that believes a petition be filed, but counsel that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on the client. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
