UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4830
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TYRONE RICHARD GOLDSTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00315-NCT-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 5, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian M. Aus, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra
Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Anna Mills
Wagoner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Richard Goldston pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute 188 grams of cocaine base (“crack”). He
was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal,
but raising the following issue: whether the district court
abused its discretion in sentencing Goldston. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
sentencing of Goldston. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007) (noting a district court’s sentence is reviewed for
reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard); United
States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Here, the
district court, after listening to the arguments of counsel,
hearing from Goldston himself, and expressly considering the 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010) factors, departed
below Goldston’s properly-calculated advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range and imposed a mandatory-minimum twenty-year
sentence. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) (2006). Thus, this claim
fails.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Goldston’s conviction and sentence. This
2
court requires that counsel inform Goldston, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Goldston 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 Goldston.
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