US v. Eulalia Headen

Filing 920090327

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4880 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EULALIA HEADEN, a/k/a Eulalia Jean Headen, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00169-1) Submitted: March 16, 2009 Decided: March 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Debra Kilgore, BURTON, KILGORE & LAZENBY, PLLC, Princeton, West Virginia, for Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eulalia Jean Headen appeals the district court's judgment imposing a sentence of fifteen months in prison after Headen pled guilty to an information charging her with using a communication commission hydrocodone appeal, of in facility, felony a telephone, with U.S.C. filed to intent 843(b) a brief facilitate to the possession of 21 has distribute On to violation for (2006). pursuant counsel Headen Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the issue of whether the district court erred by imposing an unreasonable sentence. Headen was informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but elected not to do so. Finding no error, we affirm. We review Headen's sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). The first step in this review requires us to ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the guidelines range. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. When reviewing a sentence on appeal, we presume that a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range is reasonable. 2 United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). We also give due deference to the district court's decision that the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008) factors justify imposing a variant sentence and to its determination regarding the extent of any variance. (4th Cir. 2007). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 474 district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing Headen, and that her sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. guideline considering investigation 32(e)(2)(g) The district court correctly calculated Headen's range that and sentenced her below received with the that the R. range after Headen in timely accordance presentence Crim. P. report and Fed. after considering 3553(a) factors justifying the imposition of a variant 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 her client, in writing, of her 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 3 withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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

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?