US v. Robert Meo, No. 15-4339 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4339 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT MICHAEL MEO, a/k/a Michael Robert Meo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00470-CCE-1) Submitted: February 29, 2016 Decided: April 1, 2016 Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Michael Meo pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), 2 (2012). The district sentenced him to 156 months’ imprisonment by followed 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Meo’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 meritorious grounds district court U.S. 738 (1967), for imposed appeal a stating but that there questioning substantively are whether unreasonable no the sentence. Meo did not file a pro se supplemental brief, despite receiving an extension of time to do so. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. district court made no significant procedural error The at sentencing, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and Meo does not within-Guidelines rebut our sentence appellate is presumption substantively that his reasonable, see United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Meo, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Meo requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 2 counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Meo. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
