UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-4182

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

SHILOH RANA BENNETT, a/k/a Regina Dianne Bennett, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:08-cr-00206-HMH-2) 

Submitted: November 30, 2009 Decided: December 23, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Shiloh Rana Bennett pled guilty to uttering 

counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 513(a) & 2 

(2006), and fraud with false documents, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(3) & 2 (2006). The district court sentenced 

Bennett to concurrent terms of thirty months in prison. Bennett 

timely appealed. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), finding no meritorious grounds 

for appeal but questioning whether Bennett’s sentence was 

reasonable. Bennett was advised of, but did not exercise, her 

right to file a pro se supplemental brief. 

 We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse 

of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). This review requires appellate consideration of both 

the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. 

Id. After determining whether the district court properly 

calculated the defendant’s advisory guidelines range, we must 

then assess whether the district court considered the 

§ 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the 

parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.

at 50-51; see United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th 

Cir. 2009). The record must establish that the district court 

made “an individualized assessment based on the facts 

presented.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

2 
3 

 We find no error by the district court in calculating 

Bennett’s guidelines range. Moreover, the court’s statements at 

Bennett’s sentencing hearing reflect an “individualized 

assessment” of the facts pertaining to her sentence. We also 

find the below-guidelines sentence to be substantively 

reasonable. 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

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

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Bennett, in writing, of the right 

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Bennett 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 Bennett. 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