US v. Allen McCall, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALLEN MARSHELL MCCALL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00104-FDW-CH-10) Submitted: May 8, 2009 Decided: June 9, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Culler, CULLER LAW FIRM, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Following a lengthy jury trial, Allen Marshell McCall, Jr., was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). McCall was sentenced to See 21 U.S.C.A. the statutory mandatory minimum of 240 months. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2008) (prescribing twenty-year minimum for cases involving five grams or more of crack and a prior felony drug conviction). Counsel filed a Finding no error, we affirm. brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal. McCall was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not do so. The Government elected not to file a responsive brief. In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. established that The overwhelming evidence presented at trial McCall was involved in "`a loosely-knit association of members linked . . . by their mutual interest in sustaining the overall enterprise of catering to the ultimate demands of a particular drug consumption market'" -- Mecklenburg County. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 858 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Banks, 10 F.3d 1044, 1054 (4th Cir. 1993)). 2 Moreover, procedural steps in the district court McCall, followed the necessary treating sentencing appropriately the Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the applicable Guidelines range, and referencing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). 596 (2007). See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 240-month sentence, which is the McCall's Guidelines range and the statutory mandatory minimum, may be presumed reasonable by this court. 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). See United States v. Pauley, Thus, the district court did See not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 591 (stating appellate review of sentence, "whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range," is for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. writing, This court requires that counsel inform his client, in 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 We dispense with contentions are that a copy thereof was served on the client. oral argument because the facts and legal 3 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4