UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4159
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GEORGE ODOM, JR.,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00190-NCT-1)
Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Odom, Jr., appeals from his conviction and 120-
month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon. Odom’s attorney filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the four-level enhancement to Odom’s offense level
based on the finding that he possessed the firearm in connection
with another felony, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG)
§ 2K2.1 (2007), and the reasonableness of the sentence, but
stating that there was no merit to the appeal. Odom filed a pro
se brief arguing these same issues and contending that his
criminal history category was improperly computed and
challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2000). Our review of the record discloses no reversible error;
accordingly, we affirm Odom’s conviction 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
2
that a sentence within the properly calculated sentencing
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 Odom, and we find no abuse of discretion in the
sentence of 120 months of imprisonment. The district court did
not clearly err in finding that the gun had the potential to
facilitate the sale of marijuana, see USSG § 2K2.1, comment.
(n.14), thus, we reject Odom’s challenge to the four-level
enhancement for possession of the firearm in connection with
another felony offense.
Odom argues that his criminal history was improperly
calculated, asserting that he was sentenced on the same day for
two of his prior convictions, therefore they should not have
been counted separately. Because the error, if any, would not
affect Odom’s sentence, we find no plain error in the
computation of Odom’s criminal history category. See United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (providing standard);
USSG ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing table).
Odom also challenges the constitutionality of
§ 922(g)(1) as a violation of the separation of federal and
3
state powers clause of the Constitution. We find no merit to
this contention. See United States v. McKenzie, 99 F.3d 813,
820 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Collins, 61 F.3d 1379,
1383-84 (9th Cir. 1995).
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Odom’s conviction and sentence. 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
4