US v. Jerry Headen, No. 08-4879 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4879 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERRY HEADEN, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 violation charging of 21 conspiracies U.S.C. § of distribute (2006), U.S.C. to money (h)(2006). The district court imposed concurrent sentences of 180 of within § commit in in imprisonment, 18 and oxycodone, laundering, months violation 846 to the 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), 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 voluntary and supported by a factual basis. was knowing and We also conclude that the 180-month sentence imposed by the district court is procedurally and substantively reasonable. 2 See Gall v. United 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. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
