UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4178
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAY ANTHONY SHELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:08-cr-00455-GRA-1)
Submitted: August 27, 2009 Decided: September 10, 2009
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ray Anthony Shell pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006), and was
sentenced to 168 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. Shell was informed of his
right to file a supplemental brief, but elected not to do so.
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 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