US v. Chandra Spigner, No. 09-4831 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4831 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHANDRA SPIGNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00665-MBS-1) Submitted: May 21, 2010 Decided: June 18, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Winston David Holliday, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chandra Spigner pled guilty to embezzlement, violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 657 (West Supp. 2009). in The district court sentenced her to thirty-seven months of imprisonment, the bottom of the advisory sentencing guidelines range. On appeal, Spigner s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there are no meritorious issues for appeal. that, in his view, Counsel questions, however, whether the district court fully complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting Spigner s guilty plea and whether the court adequately explained the chosen sentence. Spigner filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Counsel questions whether the district court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Spigner s guilty plea. have carefully district court reviewed fully the complied record with and the conclude mandates of We that the Rule 11. Moreover, the district court ensured that Spigner s guilty plea Spigner asserts that counsel provided ineffective assistance. This court may address [claims of ineffective assistance] on direct appeal only if the lawyer s ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that counsel s ineffectiveness does not conclusively appear from the record. Thus, we decline to review Spigner s ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal. 2 was knowing and voluntary and supported by a sufficient factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Next, We therefore affirm Spigner s conviction. counsel questions whether the district court provided an individualized explanation for the sentence imposed. An appellate court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion U.S. 38, 51 (2007). the Id. procedural and standard. Gall v. United States, 552 This review requires consideration of both substantive reasonableness of a sentence. This court must assess whether the district court properly calculated the advisory guidelines range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), analyzed any arguments presented by the selected sentence. parties, and sufficiently explained the Id. at 49-50; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). If there is no procedural error, the appellate court reviews the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). Here, Spigner preserved her challenge to the adequacy of the court s explanation of the chosen sentence by arguing in 3 the district months. court for a variance Lynn, 592 F.3d at 578. an abuse of discretion. sentence of twenty-four Thus, we review her claim for Id. at 579. Our review of the record on appeal convinces us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in explaining the chosen sentence. Id. at 576 ( [I]n explaining a sentencing decision, a court need not robotically tick through imposing a § 3553(a) s every within-Guidelines subsection, sentence. ) particularly (internal when quotation marks and citation omitted). 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 Spigner s motion to appoint new counsel. judgment. We deny This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. was served on in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof the client. 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 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.
