UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5122
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JONATHAN FULLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00157-HEH-1)
Submitted: July 8, 2009 Decided: September 18, 2009
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John A. Rockecharlie, Brian S. Foreman, BOWEN, CHAMPLIN, CARR,
FOREMAN AND ROCKECHARLIE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Angela
Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Fuller pled guilty to possession with intent
to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2006). He received a 160-month prison sentence.
On appeal, Fuller raises one issue, claiming the district court
committed “significant procedural error” by miscalculating his
criminal history, resulting in an incorrect Criminal History
Category and the wrong range under the federal Sentencing
Guidelines. We disagree with Fuller’s claim, and we affirm his
conviction and sentence.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). In determining whether
a sentence is procedurally reasonable, we must first assess
whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
advisory Guidelines range. 128 S. Ct. at 596-97. When
reviewing the district court’s application of the Sentencing
Guidelines, we review findings of fact for clear error and
questions of law de novo. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d
377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008).
In his appeal, Fuller claims the district court erred
by using a June 25, 2003 misdemeanor marijuana conviction in
calculating the criminal history points. After reviewing the
record, we find there is no merit to Fuller’s claim. Fuller
2
admitted that he pled guilty to the marijuana offense, and we do
not find it relevant whether he served time in jail. Therefore,
we affirm. 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