UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5222
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAWRENCE LEE HARRIS, II,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00429-WO-5)
Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: October 2, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Todd A. Smith, LAW FIRM OF TODD A. SMITH, Graham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Lee Harris, II, appeals the district court’s
judgment imposing his conviction and sentence of 262 months’
imprisonment for distribution of 22.7 grams of cocaine base in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006), following
his guilty plea.
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. Harris filed a pro se supplemental brief,
contending that the district court erred in sentencing him as a
career offender and imposed an unreasonable sentence, and that
counsel was ineffective in failing to address the sentencing
issues. Specifically, Harris argued that the district court
erroneously calculated his guidelines range by holding him
accountable for 22.7 grams of cocaine base and 22.7 grams of
methylenedioxymethamphetamine, when he had only pled guilty to
charges involving cocaine base. Furthermore, Harris contended
that his criminal history category was miscalculated because his
predicate felony drug convictions were minor, some misdemeanor
charges were concurrent and consolidated, and his felony
conviction for solicitation to commit arson was not a violent
felony. Finding no error, we affirm.
2
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. We further find that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in sentencing Harris 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).
The record supports the imposition of a sentence based upon a
finding that Harris was responsible for 22.7 grams of cocaine
base and 22.7 grams of methylenedioxymethamphetamine.
Furthermore, we find Harris’ predicate felony drug convictions
were not related and were sufficient without consideration of
any other convictions to support the criminal history category
as calculated by the district court. Because we find no
sentencing error, Harris’ argument that counsel rendered
ineffective assistance regarding sentencing necessarily fails.
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. We
further deny Harris’ motion for stay of the appeal/hold in
abeyance. 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
3
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 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
4