United States v. Jordan , 304 F. App'x 170 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4217
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRYANT SHELDON JORDAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00207-JAB-1)
Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 22, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bryant Sheldon Jordan pled guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute
cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride and to possess cocaine
hydrochloride with the intent to manufacture cocaine base, one
count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, one
count of possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, one count of conspiracy to launder money, and
one count of destruction of property to prevent seizure, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 1956(h), 2232(a)
(2006); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). Jordan was
determined to be a career offender and sentenced to a total of
322 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether Jordan’s
sentence is reasonable. Jordan was notified of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so, and the
Government elected not to file a responding brief.
When determining a sentence, the district court must
calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider
it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596
(2007). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a
sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly
2
outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id.
at 591. Sentences within the applicable Guidelines range may be
presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. United States
v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Jordan, appropriately treating the
Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and
considering the applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the
relevant § 3553(a) factors. Furthermore, Jordan’s sentence,
which is at the low end of the Guidelines range and no greater
than the applicable statutory maximums, may be presumed
reasonable. Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse
its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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 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 argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4