UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4758

KAREN MICHELLE SIMIEN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson.

Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CR-00-194)

Submitted: March 20, 2001

Decided: April 3, 2001

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,

South Carolina, for Appellant. E. Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Karen Michelle Simien appeals her conviction and sentence to

thirty-three months confinement and three years supervised release

for attempted escape in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (1994).

Simien’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738, 744 (1967), in which he represents that there are no arguable issues of merit in this appeal. Nonetheless, in his brief, counsel

addressed the possibility that the district court improperly conducted

the Rule 11 hearing in which Simien entered her guilty plea, and further that the district court erred in computing and imposing her sentence. Finding no merit to either of these claims of error, and

discovering no other reversible error in our review of the record, we

affirm Simien’s conviction and sentence. 

Simien’s claim that the district court improperly conducted the colloquy in which she entered her guilty plea is meritless. Under Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11, the district court must "inform the defendant of, and

determine that he understands, the nature of the charge(s) to which the

plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty and various rights." United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d

114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). Additionally, the district court must be satisfied that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, and that

there is a sufficient factual basis to support it. Id., at 119-20. Here,

because the district court raised these issues with Simien at her plea

hearing, there is no indication that the district court failed to meet the

requirements of Rule 11 in accepting Simien’s plea. 

Furthermore, Simien’s challenge to the district court’s calculation

and imposition of her sentence is not reviewable on appeal. This

Court lacks authority to review a district court’s imposition of a sentence that is within a correctly calculated guidelines range and within

the statutory maximum. See United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789,

2 UNITED STATES v. SIMIEN
794 (4th Cir. 1990). Simien did not object to the presentence report

or its calculation of her thirty-three month sentence. Furthermore,

although Simien’s thirty-three month sentence is at the high end of

the guidelines range, it was in accordance with the recommendation

contained in the presentence report based on her history, and was

below the five-year statutory maximum. Therefore, because Simien’s

sentence was correctly calculated, it is not reviewable by this Court

on appeal. 

As required by Anders, we have independently reviewed the entire

record and all pertinent documents. We have considered all possible

issues presented by this record and conclude that there are no nonfrivolous grounds for this appeal. Pursuant to the plan adopted by the

Fourth Circuit Judicial Council in implementation of the Criminal

Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (1994), this court requires

that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the

Supreme Court for further review. If requested by the client to do so,

counsel should prepare a timely petition for writ of certiorari, unless

counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous. In that case,

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on

the client. 

In light of the foregoing, we affirm Simien’s conviction and sentence. 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

UNITED STATES v. SIMIEN 3