US v. Juwana Bates, No. 09-4951 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4951 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUWANA ANQUANETTE BATES, a/k/a Jawana Anquanvette Bates, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00231-TDS-1) Submitted: May 18, 2010 Decided: June 18, 2010 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton B. Shoaf, Jr., Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juwana Anquanette Bates pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine base ( crack ) with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a), (b)(1)(B) (2006 & West Supp. 2009). The district court sentenced Bates to sixty months of imprisonment and Bates now appeals. Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue issues for appeal. but stating that there are no meritorious Bates was informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. Finding no error, we affirm. Counsel questions whether Bates is entitled to receive a lesser sentence based on the disparity between the punishments for cocaine offenses and crack offenses. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for significant procedural error, including failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, explain the chosen sentence . . . . 2 or failing to adequately Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The court then consider[s] the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008). we apply a If the sentence is within the guidelines range, presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-59 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence). We have reviewed the entire record and conclude that the sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district considered factors, court the and properly guidelines thoroughly calculated range the along explained its guidelines with chosen the range, § 3553(a) sentence. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328-30 (4th Cir. 2009) (reaffirming assessment that on sentencing the record court and must explain make rejection arguments for sentence outside guidelines range). court sentenced mandatory Bates minimum to based a on sentence the individualized below Government s of parties Moreover, the the statutory motion for a downward departure for Bates substantial assistance. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. This writing, of court the requires right to that petition 3 counsel the inform Supreme Bates, Court of in the United States for further review. If Bates 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 Bates. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are 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.
