UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 06-4880

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

TAMMY RENEE SMITH ARROWOOD, 

 Defendant - Appellant, 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, 

District Judge. (1:05-cr-220-2) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Brian Oglesby, Ellenboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kenneth 

Michel Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Tammy Renee Smith Arrowood pled guilty to conspiracy 

to defraud the United States and conspiracy to manufacture and 

to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and was 

sentenced to twenty-four months in prison. She now appeals. 

Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that Arrowood’s sentence is 

unreasonable, but concluding that there are no meritorious 

issues for appeal. Although informed of her right to do so, 

Arrowood has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no 

reversible error, we affirm. 

 We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse 

of discretion standard. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 

473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). In making this decision, we first 

examine the sentence “for significant procedural errors.” Id.

There were no such errors in this case; we note that the 

sentencing court correctly calculated the advisory guideline 

range, heard from the parties regarding an appropriate sentence, 

considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 

2000 & Supp. 2008), and articulated compelling reasons for 

imposing a variance sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. 

Specifically, the court considered Arrowood’s mental and 

emotional health and her meager work record and determined that 

2 
the situation warranted a minor downward variation from the 

advisory guideline range of 27 to 33 months’ imprisonment. 

 Our review also requires us to consider the substance 

of the sentence, taking into account the “totality of the 

circumstances.” Id. Arrowood contends that the court erred by 

imposing an active prison sentence, particularly given the 

court’s acknowledgement of her physical and emotional problems. 

Given the seriousness of the charges to which Arrowood pled 

guilty, as well as the other circumstances of this case, we find 

that Arrowood’s sentence is substantively reasonable and that 

the district court did not abuse its discretion. 

 We have examined the entire record in the case in 

accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no 

meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm 

Arrowood’s convictions and sentence. This court requires that 

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

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

the client 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

3 
4 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED