UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4738
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN DUANE DULA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-1)
Submitted: May 18, 2009 Decided: June 5, 2009
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roderick M. Wright, Jr., THE WRIGHT LAW FIRM OF CHARLOTTE,
P.L.L.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Duane Dula pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base and five grams
or more of powder cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846
(2006). The district court imposed the statutory mandatory
minimum sentence of 120 months in prison. Dula timely appealed.
Counsel for Dula filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether
the district court fashioned a reasonable sentence. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
A review of the record reveals no error in sentencing.
When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate
the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider it in
conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006). Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007).
Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a sentence,
“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
[g]uidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 591.
Sentences within the applicable guidelines range may be presumed
by the appellate court to be reasonable. United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
2
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Dula, appropriately treating the sentencing
guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the
applicable guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a)
factors. Dula’s guidelines range was 108 to 135 months but
because of the statutory mandatory minimum sentence, his range
became 120 to 135 months. Dula’s 120-month sentence, which is
the low end of the applicable guidelines range, below the
statutory maximum of life, and the minimum sentence the district
court was required to impose, may be presumed reasonable by this
court. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. We conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen
sentence.
We have reviewed Dula’s pro se supplemental brief and
find no merit to his claims. In accordance with Anders, we have
reviewed the 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 Dula, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Dula 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 Dula.
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