US v. Altise Bridge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00359-CCE-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999540538]. [14-4386]

Appeal: 14-4386

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/05/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4386

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALTISE SHAHEED BRIDGES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00359-CCE-1)

Submitted:

December 23, 2014

Decided:

March 5, 2015

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bettina Kay Roberts, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4386

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/05/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In December 2013, Altise Shaheed Bridges pled guilty
to railroad train robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1991, 2
(2012).

The

district

court

sentenced

Bridges

to

ninety-two

months’ imprisonment, which was in the middle of his Guidelines
range. *

On appeal, Bridges’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the
substantive

reasonableness

of

Bridges’

sentence.

Although

advised of his right to do so, Bridges has not filed a pro se
supplemental

brief.

response brief.
We

The

Government

has

declined

to

review

States,

a

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Bridges’

sentence

for

reasonableness,

applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
United

file

552

U.S.

38,

41

(2007).

When

Gall v.

reviewing

a

sentence for substantive reasonableness, we examine the totality
of the circumstances and, if the sentence is within the properly
calculated Guidelines range, apply a presumption on appeal that
the

sentence

is

substantively

reasonable.

United

States

Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216–17 (4th Cir. 2010).

*

v.

Such a

Hearing no objection from either party, the district court
adopted the presentence report prepared on Bridges, which
calculated
Bridges’
Guidelines
range
at
84-105
months’
imprisonment.

2

Appeal: 14-4386

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/05/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

presumption is rebutted only if the defendant shows “that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [(2012)] factors.”

United States v. Montes–Pineda,

445

2006)

F.3d

375,

379

(4th

Cir.

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
On appeal, Bridges argues that the totality of the
circumstances present in his case establish that the selected
sentence

is

greater

than

purposes of sentencing.

necessary

to

achieve

the

statutory

But appellate counsel does not identify

those particular circumstances, or the corresponding § 3553(a)
factors, that would have warranted a lower sentence, and our
review

of

the

record

does

not

reveal

a

basis

for

such

a

contention.
Specifically, defense counsel argued for a sentence at
the low end of Bridges’ Guidelines range relying, primarily, on
two

factors:

(1)

Bridges’

difficult

childhood,

which

was

replete with domestic violence, child abuse, and drug abuse; and
(2)

Bridges’

productive

relatively

member

of

young

society

age

after

and

hopes

receiving

drug

counseling, and a GED while in federal custody.
court

fully

concluded

acknowledged

that

this

Bridges’

did

not

troubled

justify

a

of

being

a

treatment,

The district

childhood,
lower

but

sentence,

particularly in light of Bridges’ extensive criminal history.
We

discern

no

abuse

of

discretion
3

in

the

district

court’s

Appeal: 14-4386

Doc: 27

decision

not

Guidelines

Filed: 03/05/2015

to

range

impose
and

a

Pg: 4 of 4

sentence

conclude

at

that

the

Bridges

low

end

has

of

failed

the
to

overcome the appellate presumption of substantive reasonableness
afforded his within-Guidelines sentence.

See United States v.

Bynum, 604 F.3d 161, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2010).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

There was no

procedural error in Bridges’ sentencing, and his guilty plea was
knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent basis in
fact.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This

writing,

of

court

his

requires

right

to

counsel

petition

United States for further review.

the

to

inform

Supreme

Bridges,
Court

of

in
the

If Bridges requests that a

petition be filed but counsel believes such a petition would be
frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw
from representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy

thereof was served on Bridges.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4