UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 charging conspiracies to distribute oxycodone, in

violation of

(2006), and to commit money

laundering, in violation of

(a)(1)(B)(i),

(h)(2006). The district court imposed concurrent sentences of

180 months of imprisonment, within the sentencing guidelines

ranges of 168 to 210 months of imprisonment.

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California,

(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

(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 was knowing and

voluntary and supported by a factual basis. We also conclude

that the 180-month sentence imposed by the district court is

procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United

2 States,

(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. 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

3