UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4394

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RODNISHA SADE CANNON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-4395

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RODNISHA SADE CANNON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00313-FDW-1; 3:13-cr-00095-FDW1)

Submitted: January 20, 2015 Decided:

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bradley L. Henry, BREEDING & LODATO, LLC, Knoxville, Tennessee, 

for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Rodnisha Sade Cannon pled guilty in accordance with a

written plea agreement to: conspiracy to commit health care 

fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347, 1349 (2012); aggravated identity 

theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (b) (2012); conspiracy to commit 

money laundering, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h), 1957 (2012); and 

attempted disposal and transfer of property to prevent seizure, 

18 U.S.C. § 2232 (2012). She was sentenced to seventy-eight 

months for the conspiracies and attempted disposal and transfer 

and two years, consecutive, for identity theft, for an aggregate 

sentence of 102 months. Cannon now appeals. Her attorney has 

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), questioning the validity of the guilty plea but 

concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. 

Cannon was advised of her right to file a pro se brief but has 

not filed such a brief. We affirm.

After careful review, we hold that the guilty plea was 

knowing and voluntary. Cannon stated at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 

hearing that her mind was clear and she was not under the 

influence of drugs or alcohol. She expressed satisfaction with 

her attorney’s services. Cannon admitted her guilt. She stated 

that her plea was not the result of threats or promises other 

than those contained in the plea agreement. Finally, the 
4

district court substantially complied with the requirements of 

Rule 11. 

With respect to sentencing, the court properly 

calculated Cannon’s Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2012) factors and the arguments of the parties, and 

provided a sufficiently individualized assessment based on the 

facts of the case. We therefore conclude that the sentence is 

procedurally reasonable. Additionally, given the totality of 

the circumstances, the sentence is substantively reasonable. 

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

States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record 

and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, 

we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires 

that counsel inform Cannon, in writing, of her right to petition 

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

Cannon 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 

Cannon. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
5

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED