US v. Brandon Bass

Filing 920090901

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4252

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRANDON LEE BASS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00182-JAB-3)

Submitted:

August 26, 2009

Decided: September 1, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Judges.

Chief

Judge,

and

GREGORY

and

SHEDD,

Circuit

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Brandon Lee Bass pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to bank robbery with a dangerous weapon, 18

U.S.C. § 2113(d) (2006), and carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime He was of violence, to 18 125 U.S.C. months'

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) imprisonment.

(2006).

sentenced

Bass' counsel has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although advised

of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Bass has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea in the district court, we review for plain error the adequacy of the guilty plea proceeding under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). United Our

examination of the record shows that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11. was knowingly, voluntarily, and Further, Bass' plea entered, and

intelligently

supported by a factual basis. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. 38, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v. We conclude that and substantively

Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). Bass' sentence is both procedurally 2

reasonable. Guidelines

The range,

district treated

court the

properly

calculated as advisory,

Bass' and

Guidelines

considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the district court's sentence was based on its

"individualized assessment" of the facts of the case. States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).

United Last,

Bass' within-guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable on appeal, United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008), and Bass has not rebutted 445 be that F.3d presumption. 375, by the abuse 379 See United 2006) is

States v. (stating

Montes-Pineda, presumption when district may

(4th Cir.

rebutted against

showing

sentence

unreasonable Thus, the

measured court

§ 3553(a) its

factors). in

did

not

discretion

imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Bass' convictions and sentence. This court

requires that counsel inform Bass, in writing, of the right to petition review. the Supreme Court of the United States for further

If Bass requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

representation.

Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof 3

was served on Bass. facts and legal before

We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4