UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4386

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALTISE SHAHEED BRIDGES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:13-cr-00359-CCE-1)

Submitted: December 23, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2015

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bettina Kay Roberts, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

In December 2013, Altise Shaheed Bridges pled guilty 

to railroad train robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1991, 2 

(2012). The district court sentenced Bridges to ninety-two 

months’ imprisonment, which was in the middle of his Guidelines 

range.* On appeal, Bridges’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that 

there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the 

substantive reasonableness of Bridges’ sentence. Although 

advised of his right to do so, Bridges has not filed a pro se 

supplemental brief. The Government has declined to file a 

response brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We review Bridges’ sentence for reasonableness, 

applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). When reviewing a 

sentence for substantive reasonableness, we examine the totality 

of the circumstances and, if the sentence is within the properly 

calculated Guidelines range, apply a presumption on appeal that 

the sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. 

Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216–17 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a 

 * Hearing no objection from either party, the district court 

adopted the presentence report prepared on Bridges, which 

calculated Bridges’ Guidelines range at 84-105 months’ 

imprisonment. 
3

presumption is rebutted only if the defendant shows “that the 

sentence is unreasonable when measured against the [18 U.S.C.] 

§ 3553(a) [(2012)] factors.” United States v. Montes–Pineda, 

445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

On appeal, Bridges argues that the totality of the 

circumstances present in his case establish that the selected 

sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the statutory 

purposes of sentencing. But appellate counsel does not identify 

those particular circumstances, or the corresponding § 3553(a) 

factors, that would have warranted a lower sentence, and our 

review of the record does not reveal a basis for such a 

contention. 

Specifically, defense counsel argued for a sentence at 

the low end of Bridges’ Guidelines range relying, primarily, on 

two factors: (1) Bridges’ difficult childhood, which was 

replete with domestic violence, child abuse, and drug abuse; and 

(2) Bridges’ relatively young age and hopes of being a 

productive member of society after receiving drug treatment, 

counseling, and a GED while in federal custody. The district 

court fully acknowledged Bridges’ troubled childhood, but 

concluded that this did not justify a lower sentence, 

particularly in light of Bridges’ extensive criminal history. 

We discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s 
4

decision not to impose a sentence at the low end of the 

Guidelines range and conclude that Bridges has failed to 

overcome the appellate presumption of substantive reasonableness 

afforded his within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. 

Bynum, 604 F.3d 161, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2010). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. There was no 

procedural error in Bridges’ sentencing, and his guilty plea was 

knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent basis in 

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

This court requires counsel to inform Bridges, in 

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Bridges requests that a 

petition be filed but counsel believes such a petition would be 

frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw 

from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy 

thereof was served on Bridges. 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 in 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED