US v. Ketae Robbins, No. 12-4478 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4478 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KETAE JEMEL ROBBINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00339-CCE-2) Submitted: December 17, 2012 Decided: January 3, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton Bays Shoaf, Jr., ADDISON & SHOAF, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ketae Jemel Robbins appeals his conviction and sentence at the low end of his Guidelines range after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine hydrochloride. Robbins s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his opinion, that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the sentencing issue of defendant whether the to months 188 district court based upon erred by all the circumstances of the case, including his motion for a [four] point reduction in sentencing level and departure, and whether the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 would operate to reduce his sentence. Robbins has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising the issues of whether the district court erred or abused its discretion in sentencing him as a career whether his counsel was ineffective at sentencing. We review discretion standard. a (2007). that under a and We affirm. deferential abuse-of- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 The first step in this review requires us to ensure the error, sentence offender, district such as court committed improperly no calculating significant the procedural Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). 2 United States v. If the sentence is procedurally reasonable, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We presume that a sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012). In calculate sentencing, the opportunity Guidelines to appropriate. argue § 3553(a) sentence district range for and whatever court give should the sentence first parties they an deem United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). the the factors requested by The district court should then consider to determine either whether they support Id. When rendering party. the a sentence, the district court must make and place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case. Carter, 564 F.3d at 328, 330. In explaining the chosen sentence, the sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for authority. exercising his own legal decisionmaking Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). While a district court must consider the statutory factors and explain its sentence, it need not discuss every factor on the 3 United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. record. 2006). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Robbins s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable, and the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing him. To the extent that he challenges the district court s denial of a downward departure, we lack authority to review the denial. 371 (4th Cir. See United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 2008). Finally, because the record does not conclusively show ineffective assistance of counsel, this issue may not be raised on direct appeal. See United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216-17 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. that a petition be filed, but counsel If the client requests 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 4 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
