UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRYANT SHELDON JORDAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00207-JAB-1)

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 22, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Bryant Sheldon Jordan pled guilty pursuant to a

written plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute

cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride and to possess cocaine

hydrochloride with the intent to manufacture cocaine base, one

count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, one

count of possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug

trafficking crime, one count of conspiracy to launder money, and

one count of destruction of property to prevent seizure, in

violation of

(c)(1)(A)(i), 1956(h), 2232(a)

(2006);

(a)(1), 846 (2006). Jordan was

determined to be a career offender and sentenced to a total of

322 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California,

(1967), questioning whether Jordan’s

sentence is reasonable. Jordan was notified of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so, and the

Government elected not to file a responding brief.

When determining a sentence, the district court must

calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider

it in conjunction with the factors set forth in

(a) (2006). Gall v. United States,

(2007). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a

sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly

2 outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion.

. Sentences within the applicable Guidelines range may be

presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. United States

v. Pauley,

(4th Cir. 2007).

The district court followed the necessary procedural

steps in sentencing Jordan, appropriately treating the

Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and

considering the applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the

relevant § 3553(a) factors. Furthermore, Jordan’s sentence,

which is at the low end of the Guidelines range and no greater

than the applicable statutory maximums, may be presumed

reasonable. Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse

its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. 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 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

3 adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4