US v. Gloria Glisson, No. 12-4238 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4238 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GLORIA JEAN GLISSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00032-FDW-DSC-1) Submitted: December 5, 2012 Decided: December 13, 2012 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stacy A. Phipps, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gloria Jean Glisson was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, three counts of bank fraud, and one count of receipt of stolen securities, sentenced to ninety-seven months imprisonment. and She appeals, challenging her sentence, alleging that the district court erred in denying her request for a downward departure or variance. Finding no error, we affirm. Glisson claims that the district court s alleged errors rendered her sentence unreasonable. This court reviews a sentence abuse for standard. first reasonableness, applying an of discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). review for significant procedural errors, We including whether the district court failed to calculate or improperly calculated the Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or failed to adequately procedural explain error, individualized its the chosen sentence. district assessment, wherein court it Id. must applies To make the v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. an relevant § 3553(a) factors to the facts of the case before it. States avoid 2009). United The district court also should address any nonfrivolous arguments for an out-of-Guidelines sentence and explain why it rejected those arguments. Id. If we find the sentence procedurally 2 reasonable, we then examine substantive reasonableness, considering the totality of the circumstances. at 51. Gall, 552 U.S. If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, this court applies a presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). Glisson s argument that the district court erred in denying her request for a downward departure is unreviewable. See United States v. Carr, 271 F.3d 172, 176 (4th Cir. 2011). However, her allegation of error in failing to grant a variance is reviewable by this court. both procedurally Glisson s and contentions We find that Glisson s sentence is substantively to the reasonable. contrary, the Despite district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors, provided a detailed individualized assessment, responded to defense counsel s arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence meaningfully and with specificity, and Furthermore, Glisson presumption of clearly explained presents reasonableness no its chosen evidence to applicable to sentence. rebut her the within- Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
