United States v. Clodfelter

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4415

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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