United States v. Bromell , 284 F. App'x 74 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4120
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CRAIG ANTHONY BROMELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:06-cr-01315-TLW-1)
Submitted: June 5, 2008 Decided: July 1, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Sheppard
Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Craig Anthony Bromell pled guilty to two counts of
possessing with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2000), and the
district court sentenced him to 192 months in prison and six years
of supervised release. On appeal, Bromell’s attorney has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court erred by
sentencing Bromell as a career offender based, in part, on his
prior South Carolina convictions for possession of crack cocaine.
Bromell was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but has not done so. We affirm.
We review Bromell’s sentence for abuse of discretion.
See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 590 (2007). “The first
step in this review requires us to ‘ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as . . . improperly
calculating . . . the Guidelines range.’” United States
v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall, 128 S.
Ct. at 597). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the
circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. At this stage of review,
we presume that a sentence within a properly calculated guideline
range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193
- 2 -
(4th Cir. 2007); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456(2007) (upholding our presumption of reasonableness).
We have reviewed the record and find Bromell’s sentence
is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district
court did not err in concluding that Bromell’s prior South Carolina
conviction for crack cocaine possession constituted a “felony drug
offense” under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (2000). See Burgess v. United
States, 128 S. Ct. 1572 (2008). Accordingly, the district court
correctly determined Bromell’s statutory maximum penalty for the
instant offenses was thirty years in prison, and his offense level
under the career offender guideline was thirty-four prior to his
three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(b)
(2007). Finally, the district court reasonably determined that a
sentence within Bromell’s advisory guideline range of 188 to 235
months in prison was appropriate in this case.
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
- 3 -
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
- 4 -