Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-4716
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cr-00169-HEH-3)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
LaKeesha
trial,
of
Nicole
uttering
Kee
was
convicted,
counterfeit
federal
following
reserve
bench
notes,
in
that
questioning
there
are
whether
no
meritorious
sufficient
issues
evidence
for
appeal
supported
but
Kees
2010).
defendant
challenging
the
sufficiency
of
the
2011)
evidence
is
quotation
that
marks
omitted).
reasonable
finder
Substantial
of
fact
could
Id. (alteration
at
the
the
time
of
counterfeit
the
money
uttering;
with
the
and
(3)
intent
that
to
she
defraud.
United States v. Leftenant, 341 F.3d 338, 347 (4th Cir. 2003).
Fraudulent
intent
circumstances
and
may
need
be
inferred
not
be
from
proven
the
by
totality
direct
of
the
evidence.
United States v. Ham, 998 F.2d 1247, 1254 (4th Cir. 1993).
We
conclude
conviction.
that
sufficient
evidence
supports
Kees
organization for several months before and after the date of the
charged offense; surveillance video showed she purchased items
using cash, taking the bill she used to purchase the items from
one pocket and depositing her change in a separate pocket; a
store manager testified that the only bills that appeared on the
video to match the counterfeit bills were those used by Kee and
her accomplice; and the bills recovered from the cash register
were
identified
at
trial
as
counterfeit.
Moreover,
Kees
Counsel
next
questions
whether
the
district
court
downward
variant
reasonableness
standard.
sentence.
under
We
review
deferential
sentences
for
abuse-of-discretion
This
Id. at 51.
We
error,
including
improper
calculation
of
the
(2012)
factors,
sentence imposed.
In
and
inadequate
explanation
of
the
Id.
evaluating
the
sentencing
courts
explanation
of
sentence,
3353(a)
it
factor
need
on
sentence
the
not
robotically
record,
within
the
tick
particularly
properly
through
when
calculated
the
every
court
imposes
Guidelines
range.
2006).
Gall,
significant
criminal
history,
and
her
failure
to
show
that
Guidelines
is
range
within
is
or
presumptively
Any
properly
calculated
[substantively]
reasonable.
306 (4th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421
(2014).
failed
rebut
the
presumed
reasonableness
of
her
within-
Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case, and have found no meritorious issues.
we affirm the district courts judgment.
5
Accordingly,
If
Counsels