US v. Steven Owens
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN ERIC OWENS, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:05-cr-00814-HFF-1)
October 21, 2008
October 24, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Steven 160-month possession possession Eric Owens imposed appeals from his convictions guilty to to plea and to
sentence of of
following with could life
methamphetamine equipment that
distribute, manufacture or
attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, and using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. Owens= attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing the reasonableness of the
sentence, but stating that there was no merit to the appeal. Owens was informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, but has declined to do so. and sentence. Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district courts for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion We affirm Owens= convictions
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007);
see United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). When sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1) properly calculate advisory; the (3) guideline consider range; the (2) treat set the guidelines 18 as
' 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008); and (4) explain its reasons for selecting a sentence. that a sentence within Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. the properly 2 calculated We presume sentencing
guidelines range is reasonable.
United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 of (2007) (upholding of application of
The district court followed the necessary steps in
sentencing Owens, and we find no abuse of discretion in the sentence of 160 months of imprisonment. convictions and sentence. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This We therefore affirm his
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 his a that a petition would leave be be to
withdraw from representation.
Counsel=s motion must state that a We dispense with oral
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
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?