Filed: Sep. 30, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4912 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CHERYL BROOKE, Defendant – Appellant, v. TERRY MASSEY; CLARETTA TAYLOR; THURMAN SPEIGHT; JANET SPEIGHT; PHYLLIS HUBBARD; PAULA GORDON, Movants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:08-cr-00289-DKC-4) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: September 30, 2010 Before WILKINSO
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4912 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CHERYL BROOKE, Defendant – Appellant, v. TERRY MASSEY; CLARETTA TAYLOR; THURMAN SPEIGHT; JANET SPEIGHT; PHYLLIS HUBBARD; PAULA GORDON, Movants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:08-cr-00289-DKC-4) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: September 30, 2010 Before WILKINSON..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4912
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHERYL BROOKE,
Defendant – Appellant,
v.
TERRY MASSEY; CLARETTA TAYLOR; THURMAN SPEIGHT; JANET
SPEIGHT; PHYLLIS HUBBARD; PAULA GORDON,
Movants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:08-cr-00289-DKC-4)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: September 30, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard Margulies, LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD MARGULIES, Columbia,
Maryland, for Appellant. Gina Simms, Jonathan C. Su, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Cheryl Brooke pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement
to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2006), and one count of bankruptcy fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 157 (2006), and was sentenced to
forty-six months in prison. Counsel has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that after a review of the record, he has found no
meritorious issues for appeal. The Anders brief nonetheless
raises as a possible issue for review whether the district court
complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when it accepted Brooke’s
guilty plea and found that her plea was knowing, intelligent and
voluntary. Brooke has filed a pro se supplemental brief and a
motion for immediate release, and the Government declined to
file a responsive brief. Finding no error, we deny Brooke’s
motion and affirm.
In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea,
we review the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to Rule 11
for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525
(4th Cir. 2002). A review of Brooke’s Rule 11 hearing reveals
that the district court complied with Rule 11’s requirements.
Brooke’s plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently
made, with full knowledge of the consequences attendant to her
3
guilty plea. We therefore conclude that no plain error occurred
and affirm Brooke’s convictions.
We also affirm Brooke’s sentence. We hold that
Brooke’s presentence investigation report (“PSR”) properly
placed her in criminal history category I and attributed her
with a total offense level of twenty-four, yielding a Guidelines
range of fifty-one to sixty-three months on her conspiracy to
commit wire fraud conviction. The PSR also correctly noted that
Brooke faced a sixty-month statutory maximum sentence for her
bankruptcy fraud conviction. At sentencing, the district court
granted the Government’s U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 5K1.1 (2006) motion, appropriately heard counsel’s argument
regarding the weight that should be afforded the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, allowed Brooke an opportunity to
allocute, and thoroughly considered the Guidelines and the
§ 3553(a) factors before imposing Brooke’s forty-six-month
sentence.
We conclude that the district court adequately
explained its rationale for imposing Brooke’s sentence, that the
sentence was selected pursuant to a reasoned process in
accordance with law, and that the reasons relied upon by the
district court are plausible and justify the sentence imposed.
See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-76 (4th Cir.
2007); see also United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 330
4
(4th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that the district court must “place
on the record an individualized assessment based on the
particular facts of the case before it” and that the
“individualized assessment . . . must provide a rationale
tailored to the particular case at hand and [be] adequate to
permit meaningful appellate review”). We thus affirm Brooke’s
within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 185 (4th Cir. 2007).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 1
We therefore deny Brooke’s motion for immediate release and
affirm the district court’s amended judgment. 2 This court
requires that counsel inform Brooke, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Brooke 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 Brooke. We dispense with oral argument because
1
We have considered the arguments raised by Brooke in her
pro se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit.
2
We conclude that the district court’s restitution order
was adequately supported by Brooke’s testimony and the
Government’s evidence regarding the conspiracy victims’ losses.
5
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
6
