UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4381
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVEN ERIC OWENS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:05-cr-00814-HFF-1)
Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra
Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Eric Owens appeals from his convictions and
160-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute,
possession of equipment that could be used to manufacture
methamphetamine, endangering life while manufacturing or
attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, and using or carrying
a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense.
Owens= attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing the reasonableness of the
sentence, but stating that there was no merit to the appeal.
Owens was informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se
brief, but has declined to do so. We affirm Owens= convictions
and sentence.
Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district
courts for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007);
see United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
When sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1) properly
calculate the guideline range; (2) treat the guidelines as
advisory; (3) consider the factors set out in 18 U.S.C.A.
' 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008); and (4) explain its reasons
for selecting a sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. We presume
that a sentence within the properly calculated sentencing
2
guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Rita v. United States,
127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of
rebuttable presumption of correctness of within guideline
sentence). The district court followed the necessary steps in
sentencing Owens, and we find no abuse of discretion in the
sentence of 160 months of imprisonment. We therefore affirm his
convictions and sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 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. If the client requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may renew his motion for leave to
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 contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3