UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4857

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHIRLEY T. WATSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (2:09-cr-00797-PMD-1)

Submitted: March 23, 2011 Decided: April 8, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Dean Hodge Secor, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shirley T. Watson pleaded guilty to one count of 

unlawful use of a social security number, in violation of 42 

U.S.C. § 408(a)(8) (2006), and one count of identity theft, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7), (b)(1)(D) (2006). She 

received a twenty-seven month sentence and was ordered to pay 

$86,930.38 in restitution. On appeal, Watson’s counsel filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California

Because Watson did not move in the district court to 

withdraw her guilty plea, the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for 

plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 

(4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, she “must show: 

(1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error 

affects substantial rights.” United States v. Massenburg, 564 

F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009) (reviewing unpreserved Rule 11 

error). “The decision to correct the error lies within [this 

court’s] discretion, and [the court] exercise[s] that discretion 

only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or 

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

stating his opinion that there are no meritorious issues for 

appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in 

accepting Watson’s plea and whether Watson’s sentence was 

reasonable. Watson, although informed of her right to do so,

has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has 

declined to file a responsive brief. We affirm.
3

public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 343 

(internal quotation marks omitted). After thoroughly reviewing 

the record, we conclude that Watson’s plea was knowing, 

voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis.

We review Watson’s sentence under a deferential 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires the court 

to “ensure that the district court committed no significant 

procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines 

range.” United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 

2008) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations 

omitted). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of 

the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the 

circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. This court presumes on 

appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines

range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 

(4th Cir. 2007). Our review of the record leads us to conclude 

that Watson’s sentence is reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Watson’s convictions and sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Watson, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Watson requests that a petition be filed, 
4

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 Watson. 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