US v. Ketae Robbin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00339-CCE-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999014035].. [12-4478]

Appeal: 12-4478

Doc: 22

Filed: 01/03/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4478

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KETAE JEMEL ROBBINS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00339-CCE-2)

Submitted:

December 17, 2012

Decided:

January 3, 2013

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milton Bays Shoaf, Jr., ADDISON & SHOAF, Salisbury, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4478

Doc: 22

Filed: 01/03/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Ketae

Jemel

Robbins

appeals

his

conviction

and

sentence at the low end of his Guidelines range after pleading
guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine
hydrochloride.

Robbins’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his
opinion, that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
raising

the

sentencing

issue

of

defendant

whether

the

to

months

188

district

court

based

upon

“erred

by

all

the

circumstances of the case, including his motion for a [four]
point reduction in sentencing level and departure, and whether
the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 would operate to reduce his
sentence.”

Robbins

has

filed

a

pro

se

supplemental

brief

raising the issues of whether the district court erred or abused
its

discretion

in

sentencing

him

as

a

career

whether his counsel was ineffective at sentencing.
We

review

discretion standard.

a

(2007).
that

under

a

and

We affirm.

deferential

abuse-of-

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

The first step in this review requires us to ensure

the

error,

sentence

offender,

district

such

as

court

committed

improperly

no

calculating

significant
the

procedural

Guidelines

range,

failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or
failing to adequately explain the sentence.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
2

United States v.
If the sentence is

Appeal: 12-4478

Doc: 22

Filed: 01/03/2013

procedurally

reasonable,

we

Pg: 3 of 5

then

consider

the

substantive

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
totality

of

the

circumstances.

Gall,

552

U.S.

at

51.

We

presume that a sentence within or below a properly calculated
Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.

United States v.

Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).
In
calculate

sentencing,

the

opportunity

Guidelines

to

appropriate.

argue

§

3553(a)

sentence

district

range

for

and

whatever

court
give

should

the

sentence

first

parties
they

an
deem

United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,

216 (4th Cir. 2010).
the

the

factors

requested

by

The district court should then consider
to

determine

either

whether

they

support

Id.

When

rendering

party.

the
a

sentence, the district court must make and place on the record
an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of
the case.

Carter, 564 F.3d at 328, 330.
In

explaining

the

chosen

sentence,

the

“sentencing

judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court
that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
basis

for

authority.”

exercising

his

own

legal

decisionmaking

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).

While a district court must consider the statutory factors and
explain its sentence, it need not discuss every factor on the

3

Appeal: 12-4478

Doc: 22

Filed: 01/03/2013

Pg: 4 of 5

United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir.

record.
2006).

We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

conclude

that

Robbins’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable,
and the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in
sentencing him.

To the extent that he challenges the district

court’s denial of a downward departure, we lack authority to
review the denial.
371

(4th

Cir.

See United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367,

2008).

Finally,

because

the

record

does

not

conclusively show ineffective assistance of counsel, this issue
may

not

be

raised

on

direct

appeal.

See

United

States

v.

Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216-17 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We

therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in
writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review.
that

a

petition

be

filed,

but

counsel

If the client requests
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 was served on the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately
4

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 12-4478

before

Doc: 22

Filed: 01/03/2013

the

and

court

Pg: 5 of 5

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

5