UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4619

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WENDY MAE BROCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00120-WO-1)

Submitted: December 21, 2011 Decided: January 5, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Frank Joseph Chut, Jr., Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wendy Mae Brock pled guilty pursuant to a plea 

agreement to three counts: Count 7, false statements to a bank, 

18 U.S.C.A. § 1014 (West Supp. 2011); Count 8, false 

representation of a social security number, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 408(a)(7)(B) (2006); and Count 9, aggravated identity theft, 

18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (2006), and was sentenced to 48 months 

imprisonment. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are 

no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following 

issue: whether the district court erred by imposing a 48 month 

sentence. Brock was informed of her right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no reversible 

error, we affirm.

After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we 

review a sentence for reasonableness, whether inside or outside 

the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, applying a deferential 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 49 (2007). We first review a sentence for significant 

procedural error and then evaluate the sentence for substantive 

error. Id. at 51; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 

(4th Cir. 2009). 

In this case, for Count 9 the district court sentenced

Brock to the mandatory minimum of 24 months imprisonment to run 
3

consecutive to any other sentence. Brock does not dispute this 

portion of the sentence. Instead, Brock’s Anders counsel asks 

whether her sentence of 24 months for Counts 7 and 8 was 

unreasonable. The court calculated Brock’s advisory Sentencing 

Guidelines range for Counts 7 and 8 as 12-18 months of 

imprisonment but imposed an upward variance sentence of 24 

months. In imposing the variance sentence, the court expressly 

analyzed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and noted: the 

high number of victims (despite a relatively low loss amount in 

money), the scope and continuity of Brock’s criminality 

(including the complexity of some of her schemes), the need to 

protect the public and to promote respect for the law, and the 

need to provide deterrence. Having reviewed the record, we find 

no procedural or substantive error in the court’s upward 

variance sentence and that the court adequately explained its 

sentence. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th 

Cir. 2010).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Brock’s conviction and sentence. This court 

requires that counsel inform Brock, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Brock requests that a petition be filed, but counsel 

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel 
4

may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

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

was served on Brock.

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