United States v. Anderson

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4770

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

MARTAVIOUS DEVONN ANDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00092-NCT-1)

Submitted: June 2, 2010 Decided: July 2, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milton B. Shoaf, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Martavious Devonn Anderson pled guilty pursuant to a

written plea agreement to distribution of fifty grams or more of

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2006).

Based on an information of his prior felony drug conviction

filed under 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) (2006), Anderson was subject

to a statutorily mandated minimum sentence of 240 months’

imprisonment pursuant to § 841(b)(1)(A). The district court

sentenced Anderson to 262 months’ imprisonment, the lowest point

of his properly calculated advisory guidelines range. Anderson

appeals.

Anderson’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his

view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but

questioning the reasonableness of the sentence considering

Anderson’s attempt at substantial assistance. In his pro se

supplemental brief, Anderson contends the district court lacked

jurisdiction to impose an enhanced sentence because the

Government did not strictly comply with the requirements of

§ 851. The Government declined to file a brief. Finding no

error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse

of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007). We presume that a sentence imposed within a properly

2
calculated guidelines range is reasonable. Rita v. United

States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-47 (2007). We find that Anderson’s

sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable and

that the district court properly explained its decision to

sentence Anderson to 262 months of imprisonment. United States

v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v.

Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). The record reveals

that the district court considered Anderson’s attempt to provide

substantial assistance in determining his sentence.

In his pro se supplemental brief, Anderson claims that

the Government failed to comply with the requirements of § 851

notice. We conclude that this claim is without factual support.

In addition, contrary to Anderson’s position, § 851 does not

require that Anderson be informed of all the predicate

convictions relied upon for his designation as a career offender

under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2008). See

United States v. Foster, 68 F.3d 86, 89 (4th Cir. 1995).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record 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,

3
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