US v. James Clodfelter

Filing 920090206

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4415

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. JAMES EARL CLODFELTER, Defendant ­ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00348-NCT-1)

Submitted:

January 6, 2009

Decided:

February 6, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Archibald Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: James Earl Clodfelter appeals his sentence to 240

months in prison after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute seventy-seven grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1) (2006).

On appeal, Clodfelter's attorney has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court erred in imposing a sentence of 240 months in prison. Clodfelter was

notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. See

We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 590 (2007).

The first

step in this review requires us to ensure that the district court committed no significant the 377, We procedural range. Cir.), error, such as

improperly v. Osborne, 128 S. Ct.

calculating 514 2525 F.3d

guideline 387 (4th

United cert. the

States denied,

(2008).

then

consider

substantive

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. reviewing within a a sentence on Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. we presume range that is a When

appeal,

sentence

properly

calculated

guideline 2

reasonable.

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). statutorily required sentence is per se reasonable.

A

United

States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the

district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing Clodfelter, filed an and his sentence of is reasonable. for The a Government drug

information

prior

conviction

felony

offense before entry of Clodfelter's guilty plea, subjecting him to a mandatory minimum prison term of twenty years under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). prior conviction. At sentencing, Clodfelter affirmed the

Because Clodfelter's ordinary guideline range

was less than 240 months, the district court properly found his guideline sentence was 240 months and imposed that sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. filed, but counsel If the client requests that a petition be 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

a copy thereof was served on the client.

3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

4