UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4880
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EULALIA HEADEN, a/k/a Eulalia Jean Headen,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00169-1)
Submitted: March 16, 2009 Decided: March 27, 2009
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Debra Kilgore, BURTON, KILGORE & LAZENBY, PLLC, Princeton, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eulalia Jean Headen appeals the district court’s
judgment imposing a sentence of fifteen months in prison after
Headen pled guilty to an information charging her with using a
communication facility, a telephone, to facilitate the
commission of felony possession with intent to distribute
hydrocodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (2006). On
appeal, counsel for Headen has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious
issues for appeal, but raising the issue of whether the district
court erred by imposing an unreasonable sentence. Headen was
informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
elected not to do so. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review Headen’s sentence for abuse of discretion.
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (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 guidelines 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. United States v.
2
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). We also give due
deference to the district court’s decision that the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008) factors justify imposing a
variant sentence and to its determination regarding the extent
of any variance. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 474
(4th Cir. 2007).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing
Headen, and that her sentence is procedurally and substantively
reasonable. The district court correctly calculated Headen’s
guideline range and sentenced her below that range after
considering that Headen timely received the presentence
investigation report in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P.
32(e)(2)(g) and after considering the § 3553(a) factors
justifying the imposition of a variant 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 her client, in writing,
of her 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
3
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