UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5081
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (3:07-cr-01251-JFA-1)
Submitted: July 7, 2009 Decided: July 21, 2009
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Beattie B. Ashmore, PRICE ASHMORE & BEASLEY P.A., Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Thomas pleaded guilty to possession with
intent to distribute cocaine base, marijuana, and ecstasy, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006), and carrying a firearm
in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2009). The district court
sentenced Thomas to 117 months of imprisonment. His attorney
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), raising one issue but stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Thomas was informed of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. We
affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the
district court erred in sentencing Thomas to 117 months of
imprisonment. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United
States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so
doing, we first examine the sentence for “significant procedural
error,” including: “failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines
as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)
[(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
2
sentence . . . .” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. This court “then
consider[s] the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed.” Id. “Substantive reasonableness review entails
taking into account the ‘totality of the circumstances,
including the extent of any variance from the [g]uidelines
range.’” United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir.
2007) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). If the sentence is
within the guidelines range, we apply a presumption of
reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127
S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of
reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court committed no reversible procedural error in
sentencing Thomas. Furthermore, we conclude that Thomas’
within-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Thomas, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Thomas 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
3
state that a copy thereof was served on Thomas. 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