UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4137

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ZACHARY WILLIAM SANDERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:06-cr-253-D-1)

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 19, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David W. Long, POYNER & SPRUILL LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Zachary William Sanders pled guilty to one count of

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of

(g)(1), 924 (2006); one count of possession with

intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, in violation of

(a)(1) (2006); and one count of possession of a

firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation

of

(c)(2006). After application of a career

offender enhancement, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)

§ 4B1.1 (2007); an additional two-level enhancement because the

firearm was stolen, USSG § 2K1.1(b)(4)(A); and a three-level

reduction for acceptance of responsibility, USSG § 3B1.1(b), the

district court sentenced Sanders to 276 months’ imprisonment.

Sanders’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California,

(1967), stating that there are no

meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether

sentencing Sanders as a career offender violated his Sixth

Amendment rights, and whether Sanders’ sentence was reasonable.

Sanders was advised of his right to file a pro se brief, but has

failed to do so. We affirm.

Sanders does not dispute that he satisfies the

requirements for career offender status, and his claim that such

classification violates his constitutional rights fails. As we

previously have held, the application of the career offender

2 enhancement is properly predicated upon prior convictions found

by a sentencing judge where, as here, the relevant facts

supporting the enhancement are undisputed, making it unnecessary

for the court to resolve disputed issues of material fact. See

United States v. Collins,

(4th Cir. 2005);

see also United States v. Cheek,

(4th Cir.

2005).

We review the sentence imposed upon Sanders by the

district court for reasonableness, applying an abuse of

discretion standard. Gall v. United States,

(2007); United States v. Pauley,

(4th Cir. 2007) (discussing procedure district court must follow

in sentencing). Although Sanders contends that his sentence is

unreasonable, the record reflects that the district court

properly determined the advisory and statutory guideline range,

considered the relevant sentencing factors set forth in

(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), and sentenced

Sanders within a correctly calculated guideline range. As the

district court complied fully with the constitutional and

statutory requirements in imposing Sanders’ sentence, we

conclude that the sentence is reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. We therefore affirm Sanders’ conviction and sentence.

3 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 in 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 adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4