US v. Bryant Jordan
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRYANT SHELDON JORDAN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00207-JAB-1)
December 16, 2008
December 22, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Angela Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, for Appellee.
Eric D. Placke, North Carolina, Hewlett Miller, North Carolina,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Bryant Sheldon Jordan pled guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride and to possess cocaine hydrochloride with the intent to manufacture cocaine base, one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, one count of possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, one count of conspiracy to launder money, and one count of of 21 destruction 18 U.S.C. §§ of §§ property to prevent seizure, in
determined to be a career offender and sentenced to a total of 322 months' imprisonment. Counsel has Finding no error, we affirm. a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether Jordan's sentence is reasonable. Jordan was notified of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so, and the Government elected not to file a responding brief. When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006). (2007). sentence,
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596
Appellate review of a district court's imposition of a "whether inside, just 2 outside, or significantly
outside the Guidelines range," is for abuse of discretion. at 591.
Sentences within the applicable Guidelines range may be United States
presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Guidelines Jordan, as appropriately properly treating calculating the and
considering the applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a) factors. Furthermore, Jordan's sentence,
which is at the low end of the Guidelines range and no greater than the applicable statutory maximums, may be presumed
Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse
its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court. writing, Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district This court requires that counsel inform his client, in of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review.
If the client requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state We dispense with contentions are
that a copy thereof was served on the client. oral argument because the facts 3 and legal
argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?