UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4907
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OLIVER JULIAN OUTAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:08-cr-00032-PMD-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 5, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell W. Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Oliver Julian Outar appeals the sixty-three-month
sentence imposed by the district court following a guilty plea
to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or
more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), (b)(1)(B),
846 (2006). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether
the district court properly imposed an obstruction of justice
enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 3C1.1 (2009), and whether it properly denied his request for a
downward departure based on the safety valve provision, USSG
§ 5C1.2(a). Outar was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not done so. The Government
declined to file a brief. We affirm.
We review Outar’s sentence using an abuse of
discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires us to
ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161
(4th Cir. 2008). Significant procedural errors include
“‘failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range’” or “‘failing to consider the § 3553(a)
factors.’” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329 (4th Cir.
2
2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.). We then consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account
the totality of the circumstances. Id.
We conclude that the district court properly found
that Outar was subject to a two-level enhancement in his offense
level because he obstructed justice by absconding from the
United States after his arrest for the instant offense. Our
review of the record leads us to conclude that the district
court correctly found that Outar failed to establish that he had
satisfied all of the requirements for application of the safety
valve. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court
properly calculated Outar’s Guidelines range, and the within-
Guidelines sentence that Outar received is substantively
reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case 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 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