US v. Christopher Thomas, No. 08-5081 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5081 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-01251-JFA-1) Submitted: July 7, 2009 Decided: July 21, 2009 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Beattie B. Ashmore, PRICE ASHMORE & BEASLEY P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Thomas pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, marijuana, and ecstasy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006), and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2009). The district court sentenced Thomas to 117 months of imprisonment. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but meritorious issues for appeal. stating that there are no Thomas was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. We affirm. In district the court imprisonment. brief, Anders erred in counsel sentencing 38, ___, Thomas to whether 117 months the of We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. U.S. questions 128 S. Ct. 586, Gall v. United States, 552 597 (2007); see also States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). United In so doing, we first examine the sentence for significant procedural error, including: failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines as mandatory, [(2006)] failing factors, to consider selecting a the [18 sentence U.S.C.] based § on 3553(a) clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 2 sentence . . . . consider[s] the imposed. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. Id. taking into substantive reasonableness Substantive account the extent of This court then of totality any of variance the from sentence review reasonableness the entails circumstances, including the the [g]uidelines range. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). If the sentence is within a the guidelines range, we apply presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S. 2462-69 Ct. 2456, (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence). We district have court sentencing reviewed committed Thomas. the no record and reversible Furthermore, we conclude conclude the error procedural that in that Thomas within-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. This writing, of court the requires right to that petition United States for further review. counsel the inform Supreme Thomas, Court of in the If Thomas 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 representation. 3 Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Thomas. 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
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.
