US v. Jonathan Fuller

Filing 920090918

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-5122

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JONATHAN FULLER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:08-cr-00157-HEH-1)

Submitted:

July 8, 2009

Decided:

September 18, 2009

Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John A. Rockecharlie, Brian S. Foreman, BOWEN, CHAMPLIN, CARR, FOREMAN AND ROCKECHARLIE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Jonathan Fuller pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1) (2006).

He received a 160-month prison sentence.

On appeal, Fuller raises one issue, claiming the district court committed "significant procedural error" by miscalculating his criminal Category history, and the resulting wrong in an incorrect the Criminal History

range

under

federal

Sentencing

Guidelines.

We disagree with Fuller's claim, and we affirm his

conviction and sentence. This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 In determining whether we must first assess

U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). a sentence is procedurally reasonable,

whether the district court properly calculated the defendant's advisory reviewing Guidelines the we range. 128 S. Ct. at of 596-97. the When

district review

court's findings

application of fact

Sentencing error and

Guidelines,

for

clear

questions of law de novo.

United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d

377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). In his appeal, Fuller claims the district court erred by using a June 25, 2003 misdemeanor marijuana conviction in calculating the criminal history points. After reviewing the Fuller

record, we find there is no merit to Fuller's claim. 2

admitted that he pled guilty to the marijuana offense, and we do not find it relevant whether he served time in jail. we affirm. legal before Therefore,

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

contentions the court

would

process. AFFIRMED

3