US v. Jenny Hood, No. 12-4391 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4391 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JENNY C. HOOD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:11-cr-02121-GRA-1) Submitted: October 2, 2012 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 30, 2012 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Jenny Hood pled guilty without a plea agreement to wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (West Supp. 2012), and was sentenced to twenty-one months imprisonment. On appeal, v. counsel has California, 386 meritorious issues district court filed U.S. 738 for a brief (1967), appeal committed pursuant stating but to that there questioning procedural error adequately explain the sentence imposed. Anders are whether by no the failing to Hood was advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but she did not do so. The Government has declined to file a brief. We affirm. We review Hood s sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). reasonable if, among other sentence requires an v. United A sentence is procedurally things, the explains its reasons for imposing it. every Gall adequate court sufficiently Id. at 49-51. explanation, when While the district court imposes a sentence within the Guidelines range, the United explanation need not be elaborate or lengthy. States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010). Because Hood argued in the district court for leniency based on her lack of criminal history, her remorse, and her desire to pay back the money she embezzled and move on with her life, we 2 review Hood s sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court sentence and therefore imposing its chosen particularized significant provided facts adequate did not of The Hood s money explanation commit sentence. of amount an case procedural court and Hood of error by considered determined embezzled Hood s the that the warranted the sentence imposed, including a provision for restitution and a special condition of employment program. supervised release that Hood attend an Furthermore, the court considered arguments from counsel, Hood s plea for leniency, testimony from Hood s employer, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. Because Hood s sentence was within the Guidelines, the district court s explanation was more than sufficient. See Hernandez, 603 F.3d at 271. 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 judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Hood, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hood requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 3 leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Hood. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
