US v. John Womack, Jr., No. 12-4779 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4779 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN WOMACK, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00176-CCE-1) Submitted: March 8, 2013 Decided: March 19, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Senior Litigator, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: John Womack, Jr., appeals the forty-one-month sentence imposed after his guilty plea to mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (2006), and making false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1033(a)(1) (2006). Womack s counsel submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for review but questioning the reasonableness of Womack s sentence. Womack was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm. This court reasonableness, reviews applying an Womack s sentence abuse-of-discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). consideration of both the procedural reasonableness of the sentence. F.3d 572, confirms 575 (4th that Cir. Womack s within 650 F.3d correctly 388, 2010). Our calculated This requires and review within-Guidelines 395 standard. substantive Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592 procedurally and substantively reasonable. Powell, for (4th Cir.) Guidelines of the sentence record is both See United States v. (stating range that is sentence presumptively reasonable on appeal), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 350 (2011). 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. 2 This court requires that counsel inform Womack, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme review. If Womack Court of requests the that United a States petition be for further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Womack. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3