Court Opinion

ID: 9396876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:29.224359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.673362
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4377      Doc: 31         Filed: 05/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4377

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JENNIFER NICOLE MANLEY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:22-cr-00065-CCE-1)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Craig M. Cooley, COOLEY LAW OFFICE, Cary, North Carolina, for
        Appellant. Ashley E. Waid, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4377      Doc: 31          Filed: 05/22/2023       Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Jennifer Nicole Manley pled guilty to health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        § 1347. The district court sentenced her to 18 months’ imprisonment and ordered her to

        pay $68,217.80 in restitution. Manley appeals. Counsel for Manley has filed a brief

        pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious

        issues for appeal, but advising that Manley’s post-conviction attorney plans to challenge

        the loss and restitution amounts. Manley has filed a pro se supplemental brief contesting

        the sufficiency of the evidence, the loss and restitution amounts, and the effectiveness of

        trial counsel. We affirm.

               Manley first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. “A knowing, voluntary,

        and intelligent guilty plea to an offense conclusively establishes the elements of the offense

        and the material facts necessary to support the conviction.” United States v. Willis, 992

        F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir. 1993). Our review of the record convinces us that the district court

        fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Manley’s guilty plea and that Manley

        entered her plea knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114,

        116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991) (explaining Rule 11 requirements). Moreover, we find that

        Manley’s guilty plea was supported by a sufficient factual basis. See Fed. R. Crim.

        P. 11(b)(3). By pleading guilty, Manley has relinquished her right to challenge to the

        sufficiency of the evidence. See Willis, 992 F.2d at 491.

               We review Manley’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We first ensure that

        the court “committed no significant procedural error,” such as improperly calculating the

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4377      Doc: 31          Filed: 05/22/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        Sentencing Guidelines range, ∗ failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, or

        inadequately explaining the sentence.       United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 170

        (4th Cir. 2014). If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, we also review its

        substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

        The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the

        goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume that a within-Guidelines sentence

        is substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

        Manley bears the burden to rebut this presumption “by showing that the sentence is

        unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.

               Our review of the record convinces us that Manley’s sentence is both procedurally

        and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the applicable advisory

        Guidelines range, considered the parties’ sentencing arguments, and adequately explained

        its reasons for the sentence imposed. Manley fails to rebut the presumption of substantive

        reasonableness accorded her within-Guidelines sentence. Id.

               Manley asserts that her attorney provided ineffective assistance.          Claims of

        ineffective assistance of counsel may be raised “on direct appeal if and only if it

        conclusively appears from the record that . . . counsel did not provide effective assistance.”

        United States v. Martinez, 136 F.3d 972, 979 (4th Cir. 1998). Our review of the record

               ∗
                  To the extent that Manley challenges the loss and restitution amounts found by the
        district court, she failed to raise any objection in the district court, and we find no plain
        error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(A) (providing that sentencing court “may accept any
        undisputed portion of the presentence report as a finding of fact”).

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4377      Doc: 31         Filed: 05/22/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        reveals no conclusive evidence that Manley’s counsel did not provide effective assistance.

        We therefore decline to review her ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 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 Manley, in writing, of the right to petition the

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

                                                     4