UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4770
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
4