Court Opinion

ID: 9389392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:00:59.692143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:26.858095
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4435      Doc: 31         Filed: 04/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4435

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        VONYEDA CARSON,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cr-00258-MOC-DSC-2)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 24, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: D. Baker McIntyre, III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
        Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4435      Doc: 31          Filed: 04/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Vonyeda Carson pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy

        to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and was sentenced to one year

        and one day in prison. On appeal, Carson’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

        California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal

        but questioning the reasonableness of Carson’s sentence. The Government declined to file

        a responsive brief and does not seek to enforce the appeal waiver in Carson’s plea

        agreement. * Although notified of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Carson has

        not done so. We affirm.

               We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard.” United States v. Williams, 5 F.4th 500, 505 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

        142 S. Ct. 625 (2021). “[W]e must first ensure that the district court committed no

        significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the [Sentencing] Guidelines

        range, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain

        the chosen sentence.”     Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).       “If the sentence is

        procedurally sound, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking

        into account the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. McCain, 974 F.3d 506,

        515 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Any sentence that is within or

        below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.

               *
                 Because the Government has not moved to enforce the appeal waiver, we conduct
        a full review pursuant to Anders. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th
        Cir. 2007).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4435         Doc: 31      Filed: 04/24/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable

        when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756

        F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

               During the sentencing hearing, the district court accurately calculated Carson’s

        advisory Guidelines range, accorded Carson an opportunity to argue for a downward

        variance, considered Carson’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors, and adequately

        explained the chosen sentence. Accordingly, Carson’s sentence is procedurally reasonable.

        We further conclude that Carson has failed to rebut the presumption that her below-

        Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

        This court requires that counsel inform Carson, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Carson 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 Carson.

               We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                     3