UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4507

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CYNTHIA LEMON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. 

(3:14-cr-00760-JMC-4)

Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 25, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John E. Duncan, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellant. John C. 

Potterfield, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cynthia Lemon pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to 

conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1349 (2012). The district court sentenced Lemon to 57 months’ 

imprisonment and ordered her to pay restitution and forfeit 

property. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

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

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Lemon’s 

sentence is reasonable. Lemon was advised of her right to file a 

supplemental brief, but she has not done so. 

We review a sentence for procedural and substantive 

reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. 

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

Berry, 814 F.3d 192, 194-95 (4th Cir. 2016). In determining 

whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable, we consider whether 

the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory 

Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to 

argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence based on facts that 

were not clearly erroneous, and sufficiently explained the 

selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51. Only after 

determining that a sentence is procedurally reasonable will we 

consider its substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account 

the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any sentence 
3

that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is 

presumptively [substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can 

only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when 

measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United 

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation

omitted). 

Our review of the sentencing transcript revealed no 

procedural sentencing errors, and we conclude that Lemon has not 

rebutted the presumption that her within-Guidelines sentence is 

substantively reasonable. Additionally, in accordance with 

Anders, we have reviewed the remainder of the record in this case 

and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore 

affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We note, however, that the order of forfeiture is inaccurate. 

The restitution amount ordered at sentencing was $40,813.09, but 

the figure reported in the forfeiture order is $40,815.09. 

According to the court’s findings at sentencing, the restitution 

amount is correct, and we therefore remand for correction of the 

forfeiture order. 

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

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

further review. If Lemon 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 
4

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Lemon. 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 AND REMANDED