UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4807
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVINDA TONNELLIS BARBER, a/k/a T Barber,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:09-cr-00207-CMC-4)
Submitted: September 2, 2010 Decided: September 21, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scarlet B. Moore, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
James Chris Leventis, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Davinda Tonnellis Barber appeals his conviction and
262 month sentence for one count of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute and distribute more than five kilograms of
cocaine and more than 50 grams of cocaine base in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); 846 (2006). Counsel has
filed a brief in this court in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the
district court properly accepted Barber’s guilty plea and
imposed a reasonable sentence. Barber was advised of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.
Upon review of the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing, we conclude that the district court complied with
the requirements of Rule 11. Further, the district court
properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range and imposed a
sentence at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range. The
record establishes that Barber’s sentence is procedurally and
substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (providing that review of
sentence is for abuse of discretion).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore deny Barber’s motion to extend the time to
2
file his pro se supplemental brief and affirm the district
court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform her
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, 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
3