US v. Bobby Ray Cabe, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00405-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000015834].. [16-4307]

Appeal: 16-4307

Doc: 36

Filed: 02/02/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4307

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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)

Submitted:

January 31, 2017

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Appellant.
Kimberly Furr Davis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4307

Doc: 36

Filed: 02/02/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
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.

The

Counsel

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
sentence imposed.

Although informed of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, Cabe has declined to do so.

We affirm.

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
incorrect

calculation

of

the

Sentencing

Guidelines

range,

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).
no

procedural

reasonableness

error,
of

circumstances.”

the

we

also

sentence

examine

under

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

“the

the

United

If we find
substantive

totality

of

the

The sentence imposed must

be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the
goals of sentencing.
appeal

that

reasonable.

a

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

within-Guidelines

sentence

is

We presume on
substantively

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th
2

Appeal: 16-4307

Doc: 36

Cir. 2014).

Filed: 02/02/2017

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.”
The
range

as

district
130-162

court

Id.

properly

months,

heard

calculated
arguments

Cabe’s

from

Guidelines

both

parties,

considered the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and
explained its rationale for the sentence it imposed.

We conclude

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
of discretion.

See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th

Cir. 2007) (applying an appellate presumption of reasonableness to
a

sentence

imposed

within

a

properly

calculated

advisory

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.

We

This court

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
3

Appeal: 16-4307

Doc: 36

Filed: 02/02/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

this court for leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Cabe.

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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4