UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4154
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TEMARRIUS RONTAE BETHEA, a/k/a Teardrop,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00193-TDS-3)
Submitted: October 16, 2009 Decided: November 6, 2009
Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton B. Shoaf, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Temarrius Rontae Bethea pled guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams
or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006).
Bethea was sentenced to 228 months’ imprisonment. Counsel filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal
but questions whether the district court properly considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors at sentencing. Bethea was
notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
he has not done so. The Government elected not to file a
responsive brief. Finding no error, we affirm.
When determining a sentence, the district court must
calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider
it in conjunction with the factors set forth in § 3553(a). Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007).
Further, the district court “must place on the record an
individualized assessment [of the § 3553(a) factors] based on
the particular facts of the case before it.” United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Appellate review of a district
court’s imposition of a sentence, “whether inside, just outside,
or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of
discretion. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 591.
2
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Bethea, appropriately treating the
Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the
applicable Guidelines range, and applying the § 3553(a) factors
to the facts of the case. Moreover, the court granted the
Government’s motion for downward departure based on Bethea’s
substantial assistance and sentenced Bethea below the applicable
advisory Guidelines range. Thus, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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 a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move 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
3