US v. Terry Barba, No. 08-4235 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4235 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY BARBA, a/k/a Tabir, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:06cr-00131-RWT-3) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 25, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher M. Davis, Mary E. Davis, DAVIS & DAVIS, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. James Andrew Crowell, IV, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terry Barba pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy sentenced to 240 to months distribute crack imprisonment. cocaine was attorney Barba s and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating appeal, but that there addressing were the no meritorious validity reasonableness of Barba s sentence. of the issues plea and for the Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Barba has not done so. We find that Barba s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Barba was properly advised of his rights, the elements of the offense charged, and the mandatory minimum and maximum sentences for the offense. The court also determined that there was an independent factual basis for the plea and that the plea was not coerced or influenced by any promises. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). This district court court as will long affirm as it a sentence is within prescribed range and is reasonable. 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. imposed the by the statutorily United States v. Hughes, 2005). In assessing the reasonableness of the sentence, we focus on whether the district 2 court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence. States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). United We first examine the sentence for significant procedural errors, and then look at the substance of the sentence. Id. A sentence within a properly calculated sentencing guideline range is presumptively reasonable. 2007). error United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. We review a district court s factual findings for clear and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir. 2006). We sentence have is reasonable. reviewed both The the record procedurally district court and sound find that and substantively properly Barba s calculated the Guidelines range, considered that range in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a) (2006), and determined an appropriate sentence within the Guidelines range. Applying the presumption of reasonableness afforded sentences within the Guidelines range and finding that Barba failed to rebut that presumption on appeal, we conclude that his 240-month sentence is reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007); United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). We therefore affirm Barba s conviction and sentence. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of 3 his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel the client believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be 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 4
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.
