US v. Jessica Ordonez, No. 15-4238 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4238 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JESSICA ORDONEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00071-RJC-1) Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016 Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D. Baker McIntyre III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jessica Ordonez appeals her 24-month sentence imposed following her guilty plea to tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (2012), and aiding and assisting in the preparation and presentation of a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) (2012). On appeal, Ordonez’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but calculating questioning Ordonez’s whether the sentence. district Ordonez court has erred not filed in a supplemental pro se brief despite being advised of her right to do so. Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm. The offense, which involved between $200,000 and $400,000 in tax loss, Sentencing called Guidelines for a base Manual offense level §§ 2T1.4(a)(1), of 18. 2T4.1(G) U.S. (2014). Ordonez received a two-level enhancement because she was in the business of preparing tax returns. also received responsibility. a three-level USSG § 2T1.4(b)(1)(B). reduction USSG § 3E1.1(a), (b). for acceptance She of Her total offense level of 17 and criminal history category of I yielded a Guidelines range of 24 to 30 months in prison, and neither party objected to this calculation. Thus, we conclude that the district court properly calculated Ordonez’s Sentencing Guidelines range. 2 Moreover, we have reviewed the sentence and conclude that it is procedurally and substantively reasonable. is procedurally properly reasonable calculated the inasmuch as applicable the The sentence district Guidelines court range and appropriately explained the sentence and its reasons for denying Ordonez’s request for a downward departure in the context of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). sentence is presumptively See Gall v. United Further, the within-Guidelines substantively reasonable, United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014), and we discern no basis to rebut that presumption. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Ordonez, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Ordonez requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Ordonez. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 3 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.
