United States v. Banks , 320 F. App'x 198 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4301
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERMAINE DONNELL BANKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00157-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2009 Decided: April 10, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory J. Campbell, CAMPBELL LAW OFFICES, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Jermaine Donnell Banks
pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute five grams
or more of cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2006). The district court sentenced Banks to 192
months in prison. Banks’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his
view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Counsel
questions whether the sentence imposed by the district court is
reasonable. Banks was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he did not file one.
We review the sentence imposed by the district court
for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct.
586, 597 (2007). Our review of the record leads us to conclude
that the district court followed the necessary procedural steps
in sentencing Banks, properly calculating the advisory
guidelines range and considering that range in conjunction with
the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Id. We
also find that the district court meaningfully articulated its
refusal to vary from the guidelines range and to sentence Banks
near the bottom of the range. Id. Thus, we conclude that the
sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216,
218 (4th Cir. 2008) (applying presumption of reasonableness to
within-guidelines sentence).
2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 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
3