United States of America v. Mariana Simeonov

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4268
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARIANA SIMEONOV,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-00479-RBH-10)
Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 24, 2009
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John M. Ervin, III, ERVIN LAW OFFICE, Darlington, South
Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day, II, Assistant United
States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Mariana Simeonov
was convicted of conspiracy to commit marriage fraud, 18 U.S.C.
§ 371 (2006), and was sentenced to fifteen months in prison.
She now appeals. Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether
the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 but
concluding that it did. Simeonov was advised of her right to
file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file such a brief.
After reviewing the transcript of Simeonov’s Rule 11
proceeding, we find that the district court fully complied with
Rule 11. Further, after a thorough examination of the record in
accordance with Anders, we find that there are no meritorious
issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
This court requires counsel to inform his client, in
writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If the client requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy of the motion was served on the client. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --