United States v. Steven Bines

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4987

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

STEVEN KENARD BINES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00234-TDS-1)

Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Steven Kenard Bines pled guilty, pursuant to a plea

agreement, to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The district court

sentenced Bines to 180 months’ imprisonment, a variance of eight

months below the Guidelines range. On appeal, counsel has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but

questioning the substantive reasonableness of Bines’ sentence.

Bines was informed of his right to file a pro se brief, but he

has not done so. We affirm.

Bines asserts that his sentence is greater than

necessary to address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors.

This argument is unavailing. In sentencing Bines, the district

court followed all necessary procedural steps, properly

calculating the Guidelines range, considering the § 3553(a)

factors and the parties’ arguments, and providing an

individualized assessment based on the facts presented. See

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Bines’

below-Guidelines sentence is presumed substantively reasonable

on appeal, and he has not met his burden to rebut this

presumption. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir.

2012); United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th

Cir. 2006). Thus, we conclude that the district court did not

2
abuse its discretion in sentencing Bines. See Gall, 552 U.S. at

51.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record

and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore

affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that

counsel inform Bines, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Bines

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 Bines.

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