US v. Eulalia Headen

Filing 920090327

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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