UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4660
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHANTE BOWLES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin,
Chief District Judge. (2:07-cr-00133-1)
Submitted: May 29, 2009 Decided: June 15, 2009
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Edward H. Weis,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate
Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Joshua
Clarke Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shante Bowles pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to distribution of five grams or more of cocaine base,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). The district
court sentenced Bowles as a career offender to 188 months’
imprisonment. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are
no meritorious issues for appeal but states that Bowles’s
sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to
accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Bowles was
notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
he did not do so. Finding no error, we affirm.
When determining a sentence, the district court must
calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider
it in conjunction with the factors set forth in § 3553(a). Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007).
Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a sentence,
“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 591.
Sentences within the applicable Guidelines range may be presumed
by the appellate court to be reasonable. United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Bowles, appropriately treating the
2
Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the
applicable Guidelines range, and performing an “individualized
assessment” of the § 3553(a) factors to the facts of the case.
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329-30 (4th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Furthermore,
Bowles’s sentence, which is the low end of the advisory
Guidelines range and well below the applicable statutory
maximum, see 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2008)
(prescribing forty-year maximum for offenses involving five
grams or more of cocaine base), may be presumed reasonable by
this court. Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse
its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of 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 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
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4