UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4813

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DESSIE RUTH NELSON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. 

(8:07-cr-00451-DKC-1) 

Submitted: July 6, 2009 Decided: July 28, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit 

Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Gary A. Ticknor, Elkridge, Maryland, for Appellant. Jonathan 

Biran, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Dessie Ruth Nelson pled guilty pursuant to a written 

plea agreement to bribery and income tax evasion, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 201 (2006) and 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (2006). The 

district court sentenced Nelson to sixty months in prison. 

Nelson appealed. Nelson’s counsel has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. 

Although advised of her right to file a supplemental pro se 

brief, Nelson has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we 

affirm. 

 In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea 

in the district court, we review for plain error the adequacy of 

the guilty plea proceeding under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. United 

States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our 

examination of the record shows that the district court fully 

complied with the requirements of Rule 11. Further, Nelson’s 

plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and 

supported by a factual basis. 

 A review of the sentencing transcript and the 

presentence investigation report reveals no error in sentencing. 

When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate 

the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider it in 

conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

2 
(2006). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 

(2007). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a 

sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly 

outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id.

at 591. The district court followed the necessary procedural 

steps in sentencing Nelson, appropriately treating the 

sentencing guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and 

considering the applicable guidelines range, performing an 

“individualized assessment” of the § 3553(a) factors to the 

facts of the case, and stating in open court the reasons for the 

sentence. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 

2009). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

imposing the chosen sentence. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

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

We therefore affirm Nelson’s conviction and sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Nelson, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Nelson 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 Nelson. 

3 
4 

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