UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4253
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRY THOMPKINS TRUESDALE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. James A. Beaty,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00190-JAB-1)
Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 20, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Paul Alexander Weinman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terry Thompkins Truesdale appeals from his convictions
for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and his resulting
188-month sentence, entered pursuant to his guilty plea. On
appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 1 brief, concluding that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the
reasonableness of Truesdale’s sentence. Although informed of
his right to do so, Truesdale has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief. After a thorough review of the record, we
affirm.
Truesdale asserts that his sentence was longer than
necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing, especially given
the disparity between the crack and powder cocaine Guidelines
and their effect on his advisory Guidelines range. 2 While
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 109-10 (2007), held
that a district court may conclude that the Guidelines’ crack
cocaine/powder cocaine disparity yields a sentence greater than
necessary, Kimbrough did not hold that a district court must
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
In his plea agreement, Truesdale waived his right to
appeal in certain limited circumstances. Because the Government
has not asserted the waiver as a bar to this appeal, we do not
consider it. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th
Cir. 2005).
2
conclude that any sentence within the Guidelines involving crack
cocaine yields a sentence greater than necessary.
Here, the district court clearly was not sentencing
based solely upon the advisory Guidelines range. The court
understood its discretion and relied upon the nature and
circumstances of the offense, Truesdale’s prior record, his
prior involvement with controlled substances, and his status as
a career offender to conclude that a sentence within the
Guidelines range was appropriate. Thus, we hold that the court
did not abuse its discretion and imposed a reasonable sentence.
See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007)
(standard of review); United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218
(4th Cir. 2008) (applying presumption of reasonableness to
sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case for meritorious issues and have found none.
Thus, we affirm Truesdale’s convictions and sentence. 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 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
3
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