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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000015834].. [16-4307]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4307 Doc: 36 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4307 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BOBBY RAY CABE, JR., Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?