United States v. Michael Bugher , 548 F. App'x 75 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4315
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL SCOTT BUGHER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00304-TDS-1)
Submitted: November 20, 2013 Decided: December 18, 2013
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Scott Bugher appeals his conviction and
sixty-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252A(a)(2) (2012). Bugher’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.
Bugher was notified of his right to file a supplemental pro se
brief but has not done so. Following careful review of the
record, we affirm.
Before accepting Bugher’s guilty plea, the district
court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, fully complying with
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring that Bugher’s plea was knowing
and voluntary and supported by an independent factual basis.
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th
Cir. 1991). The district court subsequently followed all
necessary procedural steps in sentencing Bugher, properly
calculating the Guidelines range, considering the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors and the parties’ arguments, and
providing an individualized assessment based on the facts
presented. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Bugher’s below-Guidelines sentence is presumed substantively
reasonable on appeal, and he has not met his burden to rebut
this presumption. See United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289
2
(4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375,
379 (4th Cir. 2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Bugher, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Bugher 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
Bugher.
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