US v. Steven Bine

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00234-TDS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999386780]. [13-4987]

Appeal: 13-4987

Doc: 20

Filed: 07/01/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4987

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
STEVEN KENARD BINES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00234-TDS-1)

Submitted:

June 26, 2014

Decided:

July 1, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4987

Doc: 20

Filed: 07/01/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Steven Kenard Bines pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement,
violation

to
of

conspiracy
21

U.S.C.

to

§

distribute

846

(2012).

cocaine
The

base,

district

in

court

sentenced Bines to 180 months’ imprisonment, a variance of eight
months below the Guidelines range.

On appeal, counsel has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning the substantive reasonableness of Bines’ sentence.
Bines was informed of his right to file a pro se brief, but he
has not done so.
Bines

We affirm.
asserts

that

his

sentence

is

greater

than

necessary to address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors.
This argument is unavailing.
court

followed

calculating
factors

and

all

the

necessary

Guidelines

the

In sentencing Bines, the district
procedural

range,

parties’

steps,

considering

arguments,

and

the

properly
§ 3553(a)

providing

individualized assessment based on the facts presented.
Gall

v.

United

States,

552

U.S.

38,

51

(2007).

an
See

Bines’

below-Guidelines sentence is presumed substantively reasonable
on

appeal,

presumption.

and

he

has

not

met

his

burden

to

rebut

this

United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir.

2012); United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th
Cir. 2006).

Thus, we conclude that the district court did not
2

Appeal: 13-4987

Doc: 20

Filed: 07/01/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

abuse its discretion in sentencing Bines.

See Gall, 552 U.S. at

51.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.
affirm the district court’s judgment.

We therefore

This court requires that

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

If Bines

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 was served on Bines.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3