UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4908
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONNIE DAKOTA COVINGTON, a/k/a Dread,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00061-RJC-1)
Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ross Hall Richardson, Acting Executive Director, Ann L. Hester,
FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Dakota Covington appeals the 151-month sentence
imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to two
counts of possessing with intent to distribute a quantity of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012). In
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
Covington’s counsel has filed a brief certifying that there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the
district court properly classified Covington as a career
offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 4B1.1 (2012). Covington raises a similar question in his
supplemental brief. We affirm.
We review Covington’s sentence for reasonableness,
using “an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We must first review for “significant
procedural error[s],” including “improperly calculating[] the
Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Evans,
526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Only if we conclude that the
sentence is procedurally reasonable may we consider its
substantive reasonableness. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
2
Here, the record reveals no procedural or substantive
error in Covington’s sentence. Prior to his instant offenses,
Covington sustained felony convictions for a crime of violence
and a controlled substance offense, thus qualifying him as a
career offender. USSG § 4B1.1(a). The fact that one of those
convictions may have been predicated on an Alford * plea is of no
consequence. See United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 281-82
(4th Cir. 2012).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Covington, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Covington requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Covington. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970).
3