US v. Annette Stoker, No. 12-4422 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4422 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANNETTE STOKER, a/k/a Teresa Annette Stoker, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00366-TDS-1) Submitted: March 13, 2013 Decided: March 18, 2013 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Annette Stoker pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to two counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344(2), 2 (2006). The district court sentenced Stoker to forty-one months imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the reasonableness of the sentence. Stoker was informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but she has not done responsive brief. so. The Government declined to file a Following a careful review of the record, we affirm. Because Stoker did not move in the district court to withdraw her guilty plea, we review the plea hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). To prevail under this standard, Stoker must establish that an error occurred, was plain, and affected her substantial rights. Cir. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th 2009). Our review of the record establishes that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and ensured that Stoker s plea was knowing and voluntary. We review Stoker s sentence under a deferential abuseof-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 2 (2007). This procedural and sentence. Cir. decide consideration substantive After calculated whether analyzed requires of both of reasonableness the the Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th 2010). correctly review the the determining the whether advisory court district Guidelines considered arguments the presented the by range, § 3553(a) the sufficiently explained the selected sentence. court we must factors, parties, and Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575-76; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Once we have determined that the sentence is free of procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, tak[ing] circumstances. into account the totality of the Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575. If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we apply a presumption reasonable. on appeal that the sentence is United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption is rebutted only if the defendant demonstrates that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against Montes-Pineda, the 445 § 3553(a) F.3d 375, factors. 379 (4th United Cir. 2006) States v. (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the district court committed neither procedural nor substantive error in sentencing. 3 The court fully evaluated and resolved Stoker s objections to the presentence report. Upon resolution of the objections, the court accurately calculated and considered Guidelines range. as advisory Stoker s amended The court then heard argument from counsel and allocution from Stoker. The district court considered the 18 factors U.S.C. § 3553(a) within-Guidelines (2006) sentence was and warranted explained in light that the of the extensive nature of Stoker s fraudulent scheme, the number of victims affected, and the need to provide adequate deterrence. Counsel does not offer any grounds to rebut the presumption on appeal that Stoker s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable and our review reveals none. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Stoker. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Stoker s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Stoker, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Stoker 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 Stoker. 4 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5