United States v. Vonyeda Carson ( 2023 )

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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