Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-04598/USCOURTS-ca4-09-04598-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary Alice Anderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4598

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARY ALICE ANDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (7:09-cr-00025-GRA-1)

Submitted: March 29, 2010 Decided: May 5, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL,1 and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, 

III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

 1 Judge Michael was a member of the original panel but did 

not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a 

quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Appeal: 09-4598 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/05/2010 Pg: 1 of 5
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-4598 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/05/2010 Pg: 2 of 5
3

PER CURIAM:

Mary Alice Anderson pled guilty without a plea 

agreement to four counts of fraudulently using social security 

numbers, 42 U.S.C.A. § 408(a)(7)(B) (West Supp. 2009), and one 

count of aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1028A(a)(1) 

(West Supp. 2009). She was sentenced to one day, concurrent, on 

the fraudulent use charges, and two years, consecutive, for 

identity theft. She now appeals. Her attorney has filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

questioning whether Anderson’s sentence is reasonable but 

stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. 

Anderson was notified of her right to file a pro se supplemental 

brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm.

Our review of the transcript of the plea colloquy 

discloses full compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. 

Furthermore, the record reveals that Anderson entered her plea 

voluntarily and knowingly and that there was a factual basis for 

the plea. We have identified no meritorious appellate issues 

related to the convictions. 

Turning to Anderson’s sentence, our review is for 

reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The one-day 

sentence on the fraudulent use counts falls within Anderson’s 

advisory Guidelines range of 0-6 months; we afford a presumption 

Appeal: 09-4598 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/05/2010 Pg: 3 of 5
4

of reasonableness to this within-Guidelines sentence. See

United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). 

Additionally, the consecutive, two-year sentence for identity 

theft was statutorily mandated. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1028A(a)(1), 

(b)(2) (West Supp. 2009). “A statutorily required sentence . . 

. is per se reasonable.” United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 

210, 224 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 743 (2008). 

In sentencing Anderson, the district court did not 

apply the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors or 

explain the sentence, as Gall requires. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 

51. Although the court did not “place on the record an 

individualized assessment based on the particular facts before 

it,” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 

2009), the parties did not object to this error in the district 

court.2

 2 At sentencing, Anderson requested a within-Guidelines 

sentence--specifically, a sentence of one day--on the fraudulent 

use counts, to be followed by a two-year sentence for identity 

theft.

Anderson was not eligible for a sentence of probation.

See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1028A(b)(1) (West Supp. 2009). Further, she 

received a sentence at the lowest end of her advisory Guidelines 

range for the fraudulent use offenses, and received the 

statutorily required consecutive sentence for identify theft. 

Accordingly, the error did not affect Anderson’s substantial 

Appeal: 09-4598 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/05/2010 Pg: 4 of 5
5

rights, and we decline to recognize it. See United States v. 

Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 343 (4th Cir. 2008) (stating plain error 

standard of review), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 943 (2009). 

In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed 

the record for any meritorious issues and have found none. We 

therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel inform his 

client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court 

of the United States for further review. If the client requests 

that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a 

petition would be frivolous, counsel may move this court for 

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy of the motion was served on the client. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 09-4598 Doc: 19 Filed: 05/05/2010 Pg: 5 of 5