Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-04472/USCOURTS-ca4-09-04472-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cynthia Poakwa
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4472

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CYNTHIA POAKWA, a/k/a Cynthia Barbour,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-

cr-00141-RWT-1)

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: March 4, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Martin G. Bahl, Assistant 

Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. 

Bryan E. Foreman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-4472 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/04/2010 Pg: 1 of 5
2

PER CURIAM:

Cynthia Poakwa pleaded guilty to four counts of aiding 

and abetting the filing of fraudulent tax returns, in violation 

of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) (2006). The district court sentenced 

Poakwa to thirty-three months of imprisonment and Poakwa now 

appeals. Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but stating 

that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. We affirm.

In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the 

district court erred in accepting Poakwa’s guilty plea as 

knowing and voluntary. Because Poakwa did not move in the 

district court to withdraw her guilty plea, any error in the 

Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United 

States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). 

Furthermore, there is a strong presumption that a defendant’s 

guilty plea is binding and voluntary if she has received an 

adequate Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. United States v. Puckett, 

61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995); see Blackledge v. Allison, 

431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) (finding that statements made during a 

plea hearing “carry a strong presumption of verity”). Our 

review of the record discloses that the district court 

substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 11. We 

conclude, therefore, that the district court did not err in 

accepting Poakwa’s guilty plea as knowing and voluntary. 

Appeal: 09-4472 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/04/2010 Pg: 2 of 5
3

Counsel next questions whether the sentence imposed by 

the district court is reasonable. We review a sentence for 

reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United 

States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 

130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In so doing, we first examine the 

sentence for “significant procedural error,” including “failing 

to calculate (or improperly calculating) the [g]uidelines range, 

treating the [g]uidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 

[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence 

based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately 

explain the chosen sentence . . . .” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. 

This court then “‘consider[s] the substantive reasonableness of 

the sentence imposed.’” United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 

161 (4th Cir.) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597), cert. denied, 

129 S. Ct. 476 (2008). “Substantive reasonableness review 

entails taking into account the ‘totality of the circumstances, 

including the extent of any variance from the [g]uidelines 

range.’” United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 

2007) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). If the sentence is 

within the guidelines range, we apply a presumption of 

reasonableness. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th 

Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 

Appeal: 09-4472 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/04/2010 Pg: 3 of 5
4

(2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for 

within-guidelines sentence). 

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find that 

the sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. 

The district court properly calculated the advisory guidelines 

range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and provided 

a comprehensive explanation of its chosen sentence. See United 

States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328-30 (4th Cir. 2009). In 

addition, Poakwa has failed to rebut the presumption of 

substantive reasonableness we accord to her within-guidelines 

sentence. 

We have examined the entire record in accordance with 

the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues 

for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district 

court. This court requires that counsel inform Poakwa, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Poakwa 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 Poakwa. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 09-4472 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/04/2010 Pg: 4 of 5
5

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 09-4472 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/04/2010 Pg: 5 of 5