UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4235
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRY BARBA, a/k/a Tabir,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:06-
cr-00131-RWT-3)
Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 25, 2008
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher M. Davis, Mary E. Davis, DAVIS & DAVIS, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. James Andrew Crowell, IV, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terry Barba pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and was
sentenced to 240 months imprisonment. Barba’s attorney has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for
appeal, but addressing the validity of the plea and the
reasonableness of Barba’s sentence. Although advised of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Barba has not done
so.
We find that Barba’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Barba was properly advised of his rights, the
elements of the offense charged, and the mandatory minimum and
maximum sentences for the offense. The court also determined
that there was an independent factual basis for the plea and
that the plea was not coerced or influenced by any promises.
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir.
1991).
This court will affirm a sentence imposed by the
district court as long as it is within the statutorily
prescribed range and is reasonable. United States v. Hughes,
401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005). In assessing the
reasonableness of the sentence, we focus on whether the district
2
court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence. United
States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). We first
examine the sentence for significant procedural errors, and then
look at the substance of the sentence. Id. A sentence within a
properly calculated sentencing guideline range is presumptively
reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2007). We review a district court’s factual findings for clear
error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v.
Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the record and find that Barba’s
sentence is both procedurally sound and substantively
reasonable. The district court properly calculated the
Guidelines range, considered that range in conjunction with the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), and determined
an appropriate sentence within the Guidelines range. Applying
the presumption of reasonableness afforded sentences within the
Guidelines range and finding that Barba failed to rebut that
presumption on appeal, we conclude that his 240-month sentence
is reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456,
2462-69 (2007); United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir.
2008). We therefore affirm Barba’s conviction and sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
3
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client 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 the client. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4