US v. Angela Simpson, No. 14-4882 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4882 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANGELA DIANE SIMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (8:14-cr-00206-MGL-1) Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 26, 2015 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Greenville, South Carolina, for Sherard, Assistant United States Carolina, for Appellee. Federal Public Defender, Appellant. Carrie Fisher Attorney, Greenville, South Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Angela Diane Simpson appeals the 27-month sentence imposed after she pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of devising a scheme and artifice to defraud and obtain money by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2012). Simpson’s attorney filed a brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the reasonableness of Simpson’s sentence as a possible issue for review. Simpson has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of her right to do so, and the Government has declined to file a responsive brief. Finding no error, we affirm. Although we review Simpson’s sentence for reasonableness, applying States, an 552 abuse-of-discretion U.S. 38, 46 standard, (2007), we see review Gall v. United unpreserved, structural sentencing errors for plain error. non- See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. assess whether the district Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. court properly We first calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. 2 Id. at 49–51; see Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575–76. procedural error, we reasonableness, review “examin[ing] circumstances[.]” properly sentence the for substantive totality of the United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). a the If we find no calculated “Any sentence that is within or below Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable” and “[s]uch a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). We conclude substantively calculated that Simpson’s reasonable. Simpson’s sentence The Guidelines is district range, procedurally court listened and correctly to counsel’s arguments, denied Simpson’s motion for a departure or variant sentence, afforded adequately sentence. Simpson explained its an opportunity reasons for to allocute, imposing the and 27-month Thus, we affirm Simpson’s sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This We court requires counsel to inform Simpson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of review. If Simpson requests the that 3 United a States petition be for further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on Simpson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
