Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wanda Y. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-01
Citations: 332 F. App'x 813
Docket Number: No. 09-4291
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wanda Y. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 813–813

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wanda Y. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-4291.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 27, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 1, 2009.
Parks N. Carolina, Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United South States Attorney, Attorney, Winston D. Holliday, Jr., Assistant Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wanda Y. Martin, the sole defendant in a twenty-nine count indictment charging wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (West Supp.2009), pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement, to count twenty-two. The district court sentenced Martin to twenty-seven months' imprisonment and ordered restitution in the amount of $342,991.51 to the charitable organization which Martin defrauded while in its employ. On appeal, Martin alleges that the district court gave presumptive weight to the advisory guideline sentence range in violation of Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), in rejecting counsel's request to allow Martin to serve her sentence through home detention, a half-way house, or community supervision. The record simply provides no support for the assertion that the court improperly treated the guidelines as presumptively reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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.