UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4422

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANNETTE STOKER, a/k/a Teresa Annette Stoker,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:11-cr-00366-TDS-1)

Submitted: March 13, 2013 Decided: March 18, 2013

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Annette Stoker pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea 

agreement to two counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 1344(2), 2 (2006). The district court sentenced Stoker to 

forty-one months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a 

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

certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but 

questioning the reasonableness of the sentence. Stoker was 

informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but 

she has not done so. The Government declined to file a 

responsive brief. Following a careful review of the record, we 

affirm.

Because Stoker did not move in the district court to 

withdraw her guilty plea, we review the plea hearing for plain 

error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 

2002). To prevail under this standard, Stoker must establish 

that an error occurred, was plain, and affected her substantial 

rights. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th 

Cir. 2009). Our review of the record establishes that the 

district court fully complied with the requirements of Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and ensured that Stoker’s plea 

was knowing and voluntary.

We review Stoker’s sentence under a deferential abuseof-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 
3

(2007). This review requires consideration of both the 

procedural and substantive reasonableness of the 

sentence. Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th 

Cir. 2010). After determining whether the district court 

correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, we must 

decide whether the court considered the § 3553(a) factors, 

analyzed the arguments presented by the parties, and 

sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 

575-76; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 

2009).

Once we have determined that the sentence is free of 

procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of 

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

circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575. 

If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we 

apply a presumption on appeal that the sentence is 

reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 

(4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption is rebutted only if the 

defendant demonstrates “that the sentence is unreasonable when 

measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. 

Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that the district court committed neither 

procedural nor substantive error in sentencing. The court fully 
4

evaluated and resolved Stoker’s objections to the presentence 

report. Upon resolution of the objections, the court accurately 

calculated and considered as advisory Stoker’s amended 

Guidelines range. The court then heard argument from counsel 

and allocution from Stoker. The district court considered the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and explained that the 

within-Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of the 

extensive nature of Stoker’s fraudulent scheme, the number of 

victims affected, and the need to provide adequate deterrence.

Counsel does not offer any grounds to rebut the presumption on 

appeal that Stoker’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively 

reasonable and our review reveals none. Accordingly, we 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

sentencing Stoker.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm Stoker’s conviction and sentence. 

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

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

further review. If Stoker 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 Stoker.
5

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