US v. Sandra Dean, No. 10-4990 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4990 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SANDRA D. DEAN, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:09-cr-00893-HFF-2) Submitted: June 23, 2011 Decided: July 15, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Bradley Bennett, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sandra D. Dean pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. sentenced her to ninety-six months The district court imprisonment. Dean s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Dean s sentence was challenging asserting reasonable. factual that assistance, she and Dean statements was contending has in promised that filed the a her a pro se presentence downward counsel brief report, departure was for ineffective. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, this court reviews the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Dean s guilty plea. against her The court ensured that Dean understood the charge and the potential sentence she faced, that she entered her plea knowingly and voluntarily, and that the plea was supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm Dean s conviction. 2 We have also reviewed Dean s sentence and determine that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed is reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Dean, appropriately treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the applicable Guidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. An extensive explanation is not required as long as the appellate court is satisfied that [the district court] has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority. United States (quoting v. Rita Engle, v. United 592 F.3d States, 495, 551 500 U.S. (4th Cir. 338, 356 2010) (2007) ( [W]hen a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation. )); see also United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006) (explaining that a district court need not robotically tick through each subsection of § 3553(a)). Here, after application hearing of the the argument sentencing of factors, counsel the court as to the imposed sentence in the middle of the applicable Guidelines range. a The court specifically noted that Dean and her husband were within the same advisory Guidelines range, 3 but, due to her greater criminal history, Dean received a higher sentence. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence). In her pro se brief, Dean contends that she only purchased Sudafed and did not manufacture methamphetamine and did not know the co-defendants. These statements do not negate her knowing and voluntary guilty plea to conspiracy. See United States v. Banks, 10 F.3d 1044, 1054 (4th Cir. 1993) ( [O]ne may be a member of a conspiracy without knowing its full scope, or all its members, and without taking part in the full range of its activities over the whole period of its existence. ). Also in her pro se brief, Dean contends that she should have received a downward departure due to her cooperation with authorities. such a departure, assistance is Absent a cooperation agreement and promise of a within downward the departure discretion of based the on substantial Government. The record evinces no abuse of discretion. The final issue asserted in Dean s pro se brief is that with counsel provided respect presentence to constitutionally her investigation sentencing report by with ineffective only her by assistance discussing phone and the by failing to have a corrected version of the presentence report 4 prepared. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on establishes direct appeal counsel s unless the constitutionally record conclusively inadequate performance. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). Because the record does not conclusively demonstrate that Dean s counsel was ineffective, we decline to consider this claim on direct appeal. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This writing, United of court the States requires right for to further that counsel petition the review. If inform Supreme Dean Dean, Court requests of in the 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 Dean. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are 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.
