UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4415
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES EARL CLODFELTER,
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-00348-NCT-1)
Submitted: January 6, 2009 Decided: February 6, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Archibald Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James Earl Clodfelter appeals his sentence to 240
months in prison after pleading guilty to possession with intent
to distribute seventy-seven grams of cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006), and possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2006). On appeal, Clodfelter’s attorney has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court erred
in imposing a sentence of 240 months in prison. Clodfelter was
notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. See
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 590 (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 guideline 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). A
statutorily required sentence is per se reasonable. United
States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing
Clodfelter, and his sentence is reasonable. The Government
filed an information of prior conviction for a felony drug
offense before entry of Clodfelter’s guilty plea, subjecting him
to a mandatory minimum prison term of twenty years under 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). At sentencing, Clodfelter affirmed the
prior conviction. Because Clodfelter’s ordinary guideline range
was less than 240 months, the district court properly found his
guideline sentence was 240 months and imposed that 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 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 move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on the client.
3
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