UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4238

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JESSICA ORDONEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00071-RJC-1)

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

D. Baker McIntyre III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jessica Ordonez appeals her 24-month sentence imposed 

following her guilty plea to tax evasion, in violation of 26

U.S.C. § 7201 (2012), and aiding and assisting in the 

preparation and presentation of a false tax return, in violation 

of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) (2012). On appeal, Ordonez’s counsel has 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for 

appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in 

calculating Ordonez’s sentence. Ordonez has not filed a 

supplemental pro se brief despite being advised of her right to 

do so. Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.

The offense, which involved between $200,000 and $400,000 

in tax loss, called for a base offense level of 18. U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2T1.4(a)(1), 2T4.1(G) (2014). 

Ordonez received a two-level enhancement because she was in the 

business of preparing tax returns. USSG § 2T1.4(b)(1)(B). She 

also received a three-level reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility. USSG § 3E1.1(a), (b). Her total offense level 

of 17 and criminal history category of I yielded a Guidelines 

range of 24 to 30 months in prison, and neither party objected 

to this calculation. Thus, we conclude that the district court 

properly calculated Ordonez’s Sentencing Guidelines range.
3

Moreover, we have reviewed the sentence and conclude that 

it is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The sentence 

is procedurally reasonable inasmuch as the district court 

properly calculated the applicable Guidelines range and 

appropriately explained the sentence and its reasons for denying 

Ordonez’s request for a downward departure in the context of the 

relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Further, the within-Guidelines 

sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable, United 

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 

135 S. Ct. 421 (2014), and we discern no basis to rebut that 

presumption.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. 

This court requires that counsel inform Ordonez, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Ordonez 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 Ordonez. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
4

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED