UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4771

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

SONYA CHARISSE DOUGLAS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00073-RJC-1) 

Submitted: March 23, 2009 Decided: April 14, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, Cecilia 

Oseguera, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; 

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 

 Sonya Charisse Douglas pleaded guilty to making false 

statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(1)(2) (2006). 

Douglas was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment and now 

appeals. Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging Douglas’ sentence, 

but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. 

Douglas was informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental 

brief but did not do so. We affirm. 

 In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether 

Douglas’ sentence is procedurally and substantively 

unreasonable. Appellate courts review a sentence imposed by a 

district court for reasonableness, applying an abuse of 

discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 

(2007); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 

2007). The court must: 

first ensure that the district court committed no 

significant procedural error, such as failing to 

calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines 

range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing 

to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] 

factors, . . . or failing to adequately explain the 

chosen sentence--including an explanation for any 

deviation from the Guidelines range.” 

Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If there are no procedural errors in 

the sentencing, the appellate court then considers the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. “Substantive 

2 
reasonableness review entails taking into account the ‘totality 

of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from 

the Guidelines range.’” Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473 (quoting Gall, 

128 S. Ct. at 597). If a sentence is within the Guidelines 

range, an appellate court may presume that the sentence is 

reasonable. Id. 

 We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court committed no error in sentencing Douglas. The 

court properly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the 

§ 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained the chosen sentence. 

Furthermore, we conclude that Douglas’ within-Guidelines 

sentence also is substantively reasonable. 

 We have examined the entire record in accordance with 

the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues 

for appeal. We therefore affirm Douglas’ conviction and 

sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Douglas, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Douglas 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 Douglas. 

 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

3 
4 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED