US v. Jermaine Banks

Filing 920090410

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4301

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERMAINE DONNELL BANKS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00157-1)

Submitted:

March 31, 2009

Decided:

April 10, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory J. Campbell, CAMPBELL LAW OFFICES, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a plea agreement, Jermaine Donnell Banks pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base ("crack"), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). months in prison. The district court sentenced Banks to 192 Banks' counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Counsel

questions whether the sentence imposed by the district court is reasonable. Banks was advised of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, but he did not file one. We review the sentence imposed by the district court for an abuse of discretion. 586, 597 (2007). Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude

that the district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Banks, properly calculating the advisory

guidelines range and considering that range in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Id. We

also find that the district court meaningfully articulated its refusal to vary from the guidelines range and to sentence Banks near the bottom of the range. sentence is reasonable. Id. Thus, we conclude that the

See United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216,

218 (4th Cir. 2008) (applying presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines sentence). 2

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any we meritorious affirm the issues and have found none. This

Accordingly,

district

court's

judgment.

court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of 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

3