United States of America v. Robert Michael Meo, a/k/a Michael Robert Meo

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 followed by 3 years of supervised release. On
appeal, Meo’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the
district court imposed a substantively unreasonable 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. The
district court made no significant procedural error at
sentencing, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007),
and Meo does not rebut our appellate presumption that his
within-Guidelines sentence is substantively 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 of 3 --

3
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. 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 of 3 --