US v. Shante Bowles

Filing 920090615

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4660

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHANTE BOWLES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:07-cr-00133-1)

Submitted:

May 29, 2009

Decided:

June 15, 2009

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Joshua Clarke Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Shante Bowles pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to distribution of five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. as § 841(a)(1) a career a (2006). to The 188 district months' v.

court

sentenced

Bowles Counsel

offender

imprisonment.

filed

brief

pursuant

to

Anders

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal but states that Bowles's

sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Bowles was

notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not do so. Finding no error, we affirm.

When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in § 3553(a). Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). Appellate review of a district court's imposition of a sentence, "whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

Guidelines range," is for abuse of discretion.

Id. at 591.

Sentences within the applicable Guidelines range may be presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. United States v.

Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Bowles, 2 appropriately treating the

Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the applicable Guidelines range, and performing an "individualized assessment" of the § 3553(a) factors to the facts of the case. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329-30 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Bowles's Guidelines sentence, range which and is the below low the end of Furthermore, the advisory statutory

well

applicable

maximum, see 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2008) (prescribing forty-year maximum for offenses involving five

grams or more of cocaine base), may be presumed reasonable by this court. Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse

its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court. writing, Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district This court requires that counsel inform his client, in of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review.

If the client requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state We dispense with contentions are

that a copy thereof was served on the client. oral argument because the facts and legal

3

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

4