UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4252
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON LEE BASS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00182-JAB-3)
Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 1, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Lee Bass pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to bank robbery with a dangerous weapon, 18
U.S.C. § 2113(d) (2006), and carrying and using a firearm during
and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2006). He was sentenced to 125 months’
imprisonment. Bass’ counsel has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although advised
of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Bass has not
done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea
in the district court, we review for plain error the adequacy of
the guilty plea proceeding under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our
examination of the record shows that the district court fully
complied with the requirements of Rule 11. Further, Bass’ plea
was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and
supported by a factual basis.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, , 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v.
Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). We conclude that
Bass’ sentence is both procedurally and substantively
2
reasonable. The district court properly calculated Bass’
Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory, and
considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors.
See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
Moreover, the district court’s sentence was based on its
“individualized assessment” of the facts of the case. United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Last,
Bass’ within-guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable on
appeal, United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008),
and Bass has not rebutted that presumption. See United
States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006)
(stating presumption may be rebutted by showing sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors).
Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing the chosen sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Bass’ convictions and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Bass, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Bass 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
3
was served on Bass. 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