United States of America v. Cindy Graham

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4245
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CINDY GRAHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00237-2))
Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 16, 2007
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James S. Weidner, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. WEIDNER, JR.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Cindy Graham pled guilty without a plea agreement to
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, and distribution of methamphetamine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (2000). The district court
sentenced Graham to eighty months in prison, her sentence to run
concurrent to a state sentence she was currently serving. Graham’s
attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), representing that there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal, but raising the reasonableness of Graham’s sentence as
a possible ground for reversal. Graham was advised of her right to
file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The
Government elected not to file a responding brief. Finding no
error, we affirm.
After a thorough Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing before the
magistrate judge, the district court applied the safety valve
reduction to Graham’s original guidelines range, gave Graham credit
for time served in state prison on a related offense, considered
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors, and sentenced Graham to the
low end of a properly calculated guidelines range. We find
Graham’s sentence to be reasonable. See United States v. Green,
436 F.3d 449, 455-57 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309
(2006); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-65
(2007) (upholding the application of the presumption of

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
reasonableness afforded a sentence within a properly calculated
guidelines range).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
review. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform Graham in writing of her right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Graham requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
file a motion with this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Graham. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --