US v. Terry Barba

Filing 920081125


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4235 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY BARBA, a/k/a Tabir, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:06cr-00131-RWT-3) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 25, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher M. Davis, Mary E. Davis, DAVIS & DAVIS, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. James Andrew Crowell, IV, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terry Barba pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement sentenced to to conspiracy 240 months to distribute crack cocaine and was has imprisonment. Barba's attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), appeal, stating but that there the were no meritorious of the issues and for the addressing validity plea reasonableness of Barba's sentence. Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Barba has not done so. We find that Barba's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Barba was properly advised of his rights, the elements of the offense charged, and the mandatory 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 United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). This district court court as will long affirm as it a is sentence within imposed the by the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable. 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. United States v. Hughes, In assessing the 2005). reasonableness of the sentence, we focus on whether the district 2 court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence. States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). United We first examine the sentence for significant procedural errors, and then look at the substance of the sentence. Id. A sentence within a properly calculated sentencing guideline range is presumptively reasonable. 2007). error United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. We review a district court's factual findings for clear and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir. 2006). We sentence is have reviewed the record and find and that Barba's both The procedurally district court sound substantively calculated the reasonable. properly Guidelines range, considered that range in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006), and determined an appropriate sentence within the Guidelines range. Applying the presumption of reasonableness afforded sentences within the Guidelines range and finding that Barba failed to rebut that presumption on appeal, we conclude that his 240-month sentence is reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007); United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). We therefore affirm Barba's conviction and sentence. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of 3 his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If the client requests such a that a petition would be be counsel believes that petition frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that We dispense with oral a copy thereof was served on the client. argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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?