United States v. Bobby Cabe, Jr.
675 F. App'x 329
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Bobby Ray Cabe, Jr. pled guilty to interference with commerce by robbery under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 & 2.
- District court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 130–162 months and sentenced Cabe to 144 months’ imprisonment.
- The sentence was ordered to run consecutive to an existing state sentence Cabe was serving.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues but questioning sentence reasonableness; Cabe declined to file a pro se brief.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the sentence for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred in calculating Guidelines range | Cabe argued (via counsel) that the sentence might be unreasonable; no specific procedural challenge identified | Government maintained Guidelines were properly calculated | Court found Guidelines range correctly calculated; no procedural error |
| Whether district court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors | Cabe contended sentence might be excessive under § 3553(a) | Government argued court considered § 3553(a) and explained its reasoning | Court held the court sufficiently considered and explained § 3553(a) factors |
| Whether a within-Guidelines 144-month sentence is substantively reasonable | Cabe argued sentence possibly unreasonable on substantive grounds | Government argued presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence applies | Court held sentence is not unreasonable and affirmed as not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether running the federal sentence consecutive to state sentence was justified | Cabe questioned the propriety/reasonableness of consecutive term | Government supported consecutive term based on record and sentencing rationale | Court found the district court adequately explained and justified running sentence consecutive |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1970) (procedures for appellate counsel when no meritorious issues exist)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing sentencing reasonableness)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (defendant bears burden to rebut presumption of reasonableness)
- United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2014) (procedural-review standards for sentencing)
- United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 2007) (appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence)