Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-04037/USCOURTS-ca4-16-04037-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Albert Bigelow
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4037

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEVIN ALBERT BIGELOW,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. 

(1:14-cr-00131-CCB-5)

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Dolin, UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Leo Joseph Wise, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4037 Doc: 40 Filed: 10/03/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Albert Bigelow pleaded guilty to conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute PCP, in violation 

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846 (2016), and possession with 

intent to distribute PCP, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 

841(b)(1)(C) (2016). The district court sentenced Bigelow to 120 

months’ imprisonment, the statutory mandatory minimum. On appeal, 

Bigelow’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he found no meritorious issues 

for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of Bigelow’s 

sentence. Bigelow filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging 

the district court’s failure to suppress certain evidence, but he 

waived his right to appeal that issue when he pleaded guilty.

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case, 

and have found no meritorious issues. At sentencing, the district 

court made no significant procedural error. See Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). While the sentence falls outside 

the higher Sentencing Guidelines range, the totality of the 

circumstances support the substantive reasonableness of the

district court’s sentence. See id.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This 

court requires that counsel inform Bigelow, in writing, of the 

right to petition the United States Supreme Court for further 

review. If Bigelow requests that a petition be filed, but counsel 

Appeal: 16-4037 Doc: 40 Filed: 10/03/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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 he served Bigelow with a copy of 

the motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument will not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-4037 Doc: 40 Filed: 10/03/2016 Pg: 3 of 3