United States v. Steven Bines , 577 F. App'x 178 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4987
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
STEVEN KENARD BINES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00234-TDS-1)
Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Kenard Bines pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The district court
sentenced Bines to 180 months’ imprisonment, a variance of eight
months below the Guidelines range. On appeal, counsel has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning the substantive reasonableness of Bines’ sentence.
Bines was informed of his right to file a pro se brief, but he
has not done so. We affirm.
Bines asserts that his sentence is greater than
necessary to address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors.
This argument is unavailing. In sentencing Bines, the district
court followed all necessary procedural steps, properly
calculating the Guidelines range, considering the § 3553(a)
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). Bines’
below-Guidelines sentence is presumed substantively reasonable
on appeal, and he has not met his burden to rebut this
presumption. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir.
2012); United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th
Cir. 2006). Thus, we conclude that the district court did not
2
abuse its discretion in sentencing Bines. See Gall, 552 U.S. at
51.
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 Bines, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Bines
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 Bines.
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