UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4739
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VINCENTE ANTOINE BAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00348-TDS-1)
Submitted: March 23, 2011 Decided: April 1, 2011
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vincente Antoine Baker pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to one count of possession with intent to
distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(C) (West 1999 & Supp. 2010) (“Count One”) and one count
of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(1) (2006) (“Count Four”). The
district court imposed a 205-month term of imprisonment on Count
One and a concurrent 120-month term of imprisonment on Count
Four.
On appeal, Baker’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states
that he finds no meritorious issues for appeal. On behalf of
his client, Baker’s counsel questions whether Baker’s sentence
was unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to
accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Baker did
not file a supplemental brief, nor did the Government respond to
the Anders brief.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Baker is not entitled to relief. We review a district court’s
imposition of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
We presume that a sentence within a properly-calculated
Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). Baker points to several factors
2
that may have lent support to a lower sentence in his case, but
none of these considerations demonstrate that his within-
Guidelines sentence was unreasonable. United States v. Montes-
Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006). The district court
provided a sound explanation for rejecting Baker’s request for a
lesser term of imprisonment at sentencing. The record does not
support a finding that the district court’s sentence was
unreasonable in this regard.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Baker’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Baker, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Baker 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 Baker.
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
3