US v. Michael Bugher, No. 13-4315 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4315 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MICHAEL SCOTT BUGHER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00304-TDS-1) Submitted: November 20, 2013 Decided: December 18, 2013 Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Michael sixty-month receiving Scott sentence child Bugher imposed (2012). pursuant Anders to following pornography, § 2252A(a)(2) appeals in conviction his guilty violation Bugher s v. his counsel California, of has 386 plea 18 filed U.S. and to U.S.C. a 738 brief (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Bugher was notified of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief but has not done so. Following careful review of the record, we affirm. Before accepting Bugher s guilty plea, the district court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, fully complying with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring that Bugher s plea was knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). necessary The district procedural calculating steps the (2012) factors providing an in Guidelines § 3553(a) presented. Bugher s court sentencing range, and individualized subsequently the Bugher, considering parties assessment followed the properly 18 U.S.C. arguments, based on all the and facts See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). below-Guidelines sentence is presumed substantively reasonable on appeal, and he has not met his burden to rebut this presumption. See United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 2 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. affirm the district court s judgment. We therefore This court requires that counsel inform Bugher, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Bugher 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 Bugher. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
