United States v. Bobby Cabe, Jr. , 675 F. App'x 329 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4307
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BOBBY RAY CABE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00405-CCE-1)
Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Tiffany T. Jefferson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Kimberly Furr Davis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Ray Cabe, Jr., pled guilty to interference with commerce
by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 & 2 (2012). The
district court sentenced him to 144 months’ imprisonment. Counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no meritorious
issues for appeal, but questioning the reasonableness of the
sentence imposed. Although informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, Cabe has declined to do so. We affirm.
We review Cabe’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We must first determine whether the
district court committed significant procedural error, such as
incorrect calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines range,
inadequate consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors,
or insufficient explanation of the sentence imposed. United
States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 170 (4th Cir. 2014). If we find
no procedural error, we also examine the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence under “the totality of the
circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed must
be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the
goals of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume on
appeal that a within-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th
2
Cir. 2014). Cabe bears the burden to rebut this presumption “by
showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.The district court properly calculated Cabe’s Guidelines
range as 130-162 months, heard arguments from both parties,
considered the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and
explained its rationale for the sentence it imposed. We conclude
that the court adequately explained its reasons for the sentence
imposed and for running the sentence consecutive to the state
sentence that Cabe was serving. Our review of the record reveals
that the 144-month sentence is not unreasonable and not an abuse
of discretion. See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th
Cir. 2007) (applying an appellate presumption of reasonableness to
a sentence imposed within a properly calculated advisory
Guidelines range); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-
Guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Cabe’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Cabe, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Cabe requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
3
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Cabe. 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
4