US v. Bridges
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JACQUELINE LYNNE BRIDGES, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00244-WLO)
Submitted: November 15, 2006
November 20, 2006
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Jacqueline sentence imposed Lynne Bridges her appeals from to the 160-month to
distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine.
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but addressing the validity of Bridges' sentence. Bridges
filed two documents in this court, raising additional issues and expressing her disagreement with some drug amounts attributed to her. Because our review of the record discloses no reversible
error, we affirm. We find that Bridges' guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Bridges was properly advised of her rights, the
offense charged, and the minimum and maximum sentences for the offense. The court also determined that there was an independent
factual basis for the plea and that the plea was not coerced or influenced by any promises. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). We find that the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing 18 U.S.C.A.
factors before imposing the 160-month sentence.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006); see United States v. Hughes,
- 2 -
401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). the sentence imposed was reasonable.
Additionally, we find that See United States v. Green,
436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) ("[A] sentence imposed within the properly calculated [g]uidelines range . . . is presumptively reasonable.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). Bridges' sentence. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record, including the documents filed by Bridges, and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. conviction and sentence. We therefore affirm Bridges' Accordingly, we affirm
This court requires that counsel inform
his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. Accordingly, we deny If Bridges
counsel's motion to withdraw from representation.
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move again in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion We
must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
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.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?