US v. Victor Plowden, No. 12-4570 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4570 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. VICTOR PLOWDEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:11-cr-00399-WO-1) Submitted: January 15, 2013 Decided: February 8, 2013 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy Nicholas Matkins, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Victor Plowden appeals the district court s judgment imposing a 162-month sentence following his guilty plea to obstruction of commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2006). accordance with On Anders appeal, v. counsel has filed a brief California, 386 U.S. 738 in (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Plowden was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Government has declined to file a response brief. The We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). standard. Gall v. United We must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as improper calculation of the Guidelines range, insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and the parties sentencing arguments, and inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed. Cir. 2010). error, we If the sentence is free from significant procedural also review Id. The sentence imposed must be sufficient, but sentence. not greater sentencing. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th than the necessary, substantive to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 2 comply reasonableness with the of purposes the of A within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable on appeal, and the defendant bears the burden to sentence rebut is factors. the presumption unreasonable when by demonstrating measured against the that the § 3553(a) See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). After a thorough review of the record, we discern no procedural error in the district court s sentence. Further, we conclude that neither Plowden nor the available record rebuts the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. See id. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Plowden, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Plowden requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Plowden. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before this 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.
