US v. Bobby Ray Cabe, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00405-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4307]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
BOBBY RAY CABE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00405-CCE-1)
January 31, 2017
February 2, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Tiffany T. Jefferson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Kimberly Furr Davis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Bobby Ray Cabe, Jr., pled guilty to interference with commerce
by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 & 2 (2012).
district court sentenced him to 144 months’ imprisonment.
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no meritorious
issues for appeal, but questioning the reasonableness of the
Although informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, Cabe has declined to do so.
We review Cabe’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
Gall v. United States,
We must first determine whether the
district court committed significant procedural error, such as
inadequate consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors,
or insufficient explanation of the sentence imposed.
States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 170 (4th Cir. 2014).
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
If we find
The sentence imposed must
be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the
goals of sentencing.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We presume on
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th
Pg: 3 of 4
Cabe bears the burden to rebut this presumption “by
showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”
considered the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and
explained its rationale for the sentence it imposed.
that the court adequately explained its reasons for the sentence
imposed and for running the sentence consecutive to the state
sentence that Cabe was serving.
Our review of the record reveals
that the 144-month sentence is not unreasonable and not an abuse
See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th
Cir. 2007) (applying an appellate presumption of reasonableness to
Guidelines range); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for withinGuidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore affirm Cabe’s conviction and sentence.
requires that counsel inform Cabe, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Cabe requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
Pg: 4 of 4
this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Cabe.
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?