US v. Vincente Baker, No. 10-4739 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4739 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VINCENTE ANTOINE BAKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00348-TDS-1) Submitted: March 23, 2011 Decided: April 1, 2011 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Vincente Antoine Baker pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, distribute to heroin one in count of violation possession of 21 with U.S.C.A. intent to § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (West 1999 & Supp. 2010) ( Count One ) and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(1) (2006) ( Count Four ). The district court imposed a 205-month term of imprisonment on Count One and a concurrent 120-month term of imprisonment on Count Four. On appeal, Baker s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states that he finds no meritorious issues for appeal. On behalf of his client, Baker s counsel questions whether Baker s sentence was unreasonable because it was greater than necessary accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). to Baker did not file a supplemental brief, nor did the Government respond to the Anders brief. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Baker is not entitled to relief. We review a district court s imposition of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. We presume See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). that a sentence within Guidelines range is reasonable. F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). a properly-calculated United States v. Allen, 491 Baker points to several factors 2 that may have lent support to a lower sentence in his case, but none of these considerations demonstrate Guidelines sentence was unreasonable. that his within- United States v. Montes- Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006). The district court provided a sound explanation for rejecting Baker s request for a lesser term of imprisonment at sentencing. support a finding that the district The record does not court s sentence was unreasonable in this regard. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Baker s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Baker, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Baker requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Baker. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the 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.
