US v. Christopher Thomas

Filing 920090721

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-5081

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-01251-JFA-1)

Submitted:

July 7, 2009

Decided:

July 21, 2009

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Beattie B. Ashmore, PRICE ASHMORE & BEASLEY P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Christopher Thomas pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, marijuana, and ecstasy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006), and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2009). The district court His attorney

sentenced Thomas to 117 months of imprisonment.

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there are no

meritorious issues for appeal.

Thomas was informed of his right We

to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. affirm. In district the Anders in brief, counsel questions to whether months

the of

court

erred

sentencing

Thomas

117

imprisonment.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying Gall v. United States, 552 597 (2007); see also United In so

an abuse of discretion standard. U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586,

States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009).

doing, we first examine the sentence for "significant procedural error," including: "failing to calculate (or improperly

calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines as mandatory, failing to consider a the [18 U.S.C.] based § 3553(a) clearly

[(2006)]

factors,

selecting

sentence

on

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 2

sentence . . . ." consider[s] imposed." taking into the the Id.

Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. substantive reasonableness

This court "then of the review sentence entails

"Substantive the of

reasonableness of the

account extent

`totality any variance

circumstances, [g]uidelines

including range.'"

from

the

United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. If the sentence is a presumption of

2007) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). within the guidelines range, we apply

reasonableness. S. Ct. 2456,

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of

reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence). We district have reviewed the no record and conclude that error the in

court

committed

reversible we

procedural that

sentencing

Thomas.

Furthermore,

conclude

Thomas'

within-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court. writing, This of We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court requires to that counsel the inform Thomas, of in the

the

right

petition

Supreme

Court

United States for further review.

If Thomas requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. 3 Counsel's motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on Thomas.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

4