UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4240

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

REBECCA FOWLER FAIRCLOTH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, 

District Judge. (3:12-cr-00058-GMG-DJJ-4)

Submitted: October 10, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William T. Rice, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. 

Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, 

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rebecca Fowler Faircloth appeals the fifty-seven-month 

sentence imposed following her guilty plea to distribution of 

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). 

Faircloth’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether 

Faircloth’s 1996 state conviction for uttering — for which she 

was sentenced to one to ten years’ imprisonment — was improperly 

counted in determining her criminal history score. Faircloth 

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

but has not done so. Following careful review of the record, we 

affirm.

Because Faircloth did not object at sentencing to the 

assessment of criminal history points for her uttering 

conviction, our review is for plain error. See United States v. 

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). A defendant receives three 

criminal history points for a prior sentence that exceeded one 

year and one month of imprisonment “that was imposed within 

fifteen years of the defendant’s commencement of the instant 

offense.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) 

§ 4A1.2(e)(1) (2012); see USSG § 4A1.1(a). Also counted is any 

such sentence, “whenever imposed, that resulted in the defendant 

being incarcerated during any part of such fifteen-year period.” 
3

USSG § 4A1.2(e)(1). The unrefuted presentence report 

establishes that, within the fifteen-year look-back period, 

Faircloth was incarcerated pursuant to the sentence imposed 

following her uttering conviction. We therefore reject 

Faircloth’s challenge to the district court’s calculation of her 

criminal history score.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

and have found no meritorious issues. We therefore affirm the 

district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel 

inform Faircloth, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

Faircloth 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 Faircloth. 

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