US v. Steven Bines, No. 13-4987 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. STEVEN KENARD BINES, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, violation to of conspiracy 21 U.S.C. to § distribute 846 (2012). cocaine The base, district in 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. Bines We affirm. asserts that his sentence is greater than necessary to address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. This argument is unavailing. court followed calculating factors and all the necessary Guidelines the In sentencing Bines, the district procedural range, parties steps, considering arguments, and the properly § 3553(a) providing individualized assessment based on the facts presented. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). an See Bines below-Guidelines sentence is presumed substantively reasonable on appeal, presumption. and he has not met his burden to rebut this 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. affirm the district court s judgment. We therefore 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 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.
