US v. James Clodfelter, No. 08-4415 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4415 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAMES EARL CLODFELTER, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00348-NCT-1) Submitted: January 6, 2009 Decided: February 6, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Archibald Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Earl Clodfelter appeals his sentence to 240 months in prison after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute seventy-seven grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006), and possession of a firearm by a convicted § 922(g)(1) (2006). felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. On appeal, Clodfelter 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 in imposing a sentence of 240 months in prison. Clodfelter was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 590 (2007). See The first step in this review requires us to ensure that the district court committed improperly no significant calculating v. Osborne, 128 S. Ct. 514 2525 F.3d the guideline 377, (2008). procedural 387 We range. (4th then error, United Cir.), consider such cert. the as States denied, substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. reviewing a within properly a sentence on Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. appeal, calculated we presume guideline 2 range that is a When sentence reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). statutorily required sentence is per se reasonable. A United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing Clodfelter, filed an and his sentence information of is prior reasonable. conviction The for a Government felony drug offense before entry of Clodfelter s guilty plea, subjecting him to a mandatory minimum prison term of twenty years under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). prior conviction. At sentencing, Clodfelter affirmed the Because Clodfelter s ordinary guideline range was less than 240 months, the district court properly found his guideline sentence was 240 months and imposed that sentence. 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, believes but counsel that such a petition 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 the client. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
