UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4927
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLEVELAND D. DRUMWRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00429-JAB-2)
Submitted: July 15, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Darren Byers, LAW OFFICES OF J. DARREN BYERS, P.A., Winston-
Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. David Paul Folmar, Jr.,
Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cleveland Drumwright pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute 50 grams or more of a substance containing a
detectable amount of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2006), and was sentenced to 196 months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious issues for appeal,
but questioning whether the sentence imposed was reasonable.
Finding no error, we affirm.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11. We further find that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in sentencing Drumwright as a career offender,
and imposed a sentence that is procedurally and substantively
reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct.
586, 597 (2007) (review of sentence is for abuse of discretion).
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 filing would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
2
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
3