Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04779/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04779-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leonard Habern Brewer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4779

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LEONARD HABERN BREWER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief

District Judge. (2:06-cr-00019-jpj)

Submitted: June 6, 2008 Decided: June 30, 2008

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory M. Stewart, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.

Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant

United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4779 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/30/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Leonard Habern Brewer pled guilty to conspiracy to

distribute oxycodone and possess oxycodone with intent to

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999 & Supp.

2008). The district court properly calculated an advisory

sentencing range of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment, and imposed a

sentence of 180 months’ incarceration, to be followed by five years

of supervised release. Brewer timely appeals, and his counsel

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), questioning whether the sentence was reasonable, but

ultimately concluding there are no meritorious issues for review.

Brewer was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental

brief, but he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district

courts for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion

standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see

also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).

When sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1) properly

calculate the guideline range; (2) treat the guidelines as

advisory; (3) consider the factors set out in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)

(West 2000 & Supp. 2008); and (4) explain its reasons for selecting

a sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. We presume that a sentence

within the properly calculated sentencing guidelines range is

reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.

Appeal: 07-4779 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/30/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

2007); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69

(2007) (upholding appellate court’s presumption of reasonableness

for sentences within the guidelines). This presumption can only be

rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured

against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445

F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3044

(2007). 

The district court followed the necessary steps in

sentencing Brewer, and we find no abuse of discretion in the

sentence of 180 months of imprisonment. Moreover, the district

court adequately explained its denial of Brewer’s request for a

downward departure or variance, relying upon Brewer’s extensive

criminal history, as well as his selling drugs to others, feeding

their addictions as well as his own. We have reviewed the record

in this case in accordance with Anders and have found no

meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Brewer’s

conviction and sentence. 

This court requires that counsel inform Brewer, in

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion

to withdraw at this juncture. If Brewer requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be

frivolous, counsel may then move in this court for leave to

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a

Appeal: 07-4779 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/30/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

copy thereof was served on Brewer. 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

Appeal: 07-4779 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/30/2008 Pg: 4 of 4