United States v. Headen ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4879
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERRY HEADEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00140-1)
Submitted: November 15, 2010 Decided: December 7, 2010
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Stockton, ROBINSON & MCELWEE, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, Assistant
United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Headen waived his right to an indictment and
pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to a criminal
information charging conspiracies to distribute oxycodone, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and to commit money
laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i),
(h)(2006). The district court imposed concurrent sentences of
180 months of imprisonment, within the sentencing guidelines
ranges of 168 to 210 months of imprisonment.
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious
issues for appeal, but questioning whether Headen’s sentence was
procedurally unreasonable for failure of the district court to
adequately state on the record the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors it considered. Headen was advised of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. Finding
no reversible error, we affirm.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 and ensured that Headen’s plea was knowing and
voluntary and supported by a factual basis. We also conclude
that the 180-month sentence imposed by the district court is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United
2
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (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 affirm. This court requires that counsel
inform Headen, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Headen
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 Headen. 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