US v. Steven Owens, No. 08-4381 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4381 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN ERIC OWENS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:05-cr-00814-HFF-1) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven 160-month Eric sentence possession of possession of Owens appeals imposed following methamphetamine equipment methamphetamine, from with that endangering his convictions guilty intent could life his be to to distribute, to used while plea and manufacture manufacturing or attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, and using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. Owens= attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing the reasonableness of the sentence, but stating that there was no merit to the appeal. Owens was informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, but has declined to do so. We affirm Owens= convictions and sentence. Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district courts for standard. reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). When sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1) properly calculate the guideline advisory; (3) consider range; the (2) factors treat set the out guidelines in 18 as U.S.C.A. ' 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008); and (4) explain its reasons for selecting a sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. We presume that the sentencing a sentence within properly 2 calculated United States v. Allen, 491 guidelines range is reasonable. F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 of (2007) (upholding correctness of application within of rebuttable presumption guideline sentence). The district court followed the necessary steps in sentencing Owens, and we find no abuse of discretion in the sentence of 160 months of imprisonment. We therefore affirm his convictions 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 his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but frivolous, If counsel then the client believes counsel may withdraw from representation. requests that such renew his that a a petition petition motion for be would be leave to 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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.