US v. Bryant Jordan

Filing 920081222

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4217

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)

Submitted:

December 16, 2008

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

violation (2006);

924(c)(1)(A)(i), 846

1956(h),

2232(a) was

U.S.C.

841(a)(1),

(2006).

Jordan

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.

filed

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.

Id.

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

Sentencing

advisory,

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

reasonable.

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

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED

4