UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 06-5094

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MARK BELLAMY, a/k/a Big Mark, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District 

Judge. (4:03-cr-00474) 

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: July 2, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Steven Michael Hisker, Duncan, South Carolina, for Appellant. 

Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States 

Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Mark Bellamy appeals his amended judgment convicting 

him of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to 

distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base and five 

kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 

841(b)(1)(A), 846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2009). Bellamy’s counsel 

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

asserting there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but 

raising for the court’s consideration whether the district court 

erred sentencing Bellamy as a career offender and whether it 

erred denying counsel’s request for a downward departure based 

on Bellamy’s post-conviction rehabilitation and his minimal 

participation in the conspiracy. Bellamy filed a pro se 

supplemental brief raising several issues. The Government did 

not file a brief. We affirm. 

 With respect to the challenges to the career offender 

designation, we find no error with the type of state convictions 

used by the district court to reach that designation. See U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(a) (2002) (defining career 

offender). Insofar as Bellamy claims one of the prior 

convictions should not have been considered because it did not 

become final until after he withdrew from the conspiracy, we 

note he did not raise this issue in the district court and 

review is for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 

2 
725, 732 (1993). We find no plain error because Bellamy cannot 

show prejudice. His base offense level of thirty-eight and 

criminal history category VI were also based on drug quantity 

and the points accumulated for prior convictions and would not 

have changed even if he was not considered a career offender. 

In addition, Bellamy had at least one other felony conviction 

that could have been considered. 

 Counsel’s claim that the court erred by not granting 

the motion for a downward departure is not reviewable by this 

Court. See United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 371 (4th Cir. 

2008). 

 With respect to the remaining issues Bellamy raises in 

his pro se supplemental brief, we note that his post-offense 

rehabilitation was taken into consideration when his offense 

level was reduced for acceptance of responsibility. We find no 

error in the court’s failure to specifically address this issue 

when it imposed sentence. See USSG § 3E1.1, comment. 

(n.1(b),(g)). Bellamy’s claim that the district court erred by 

not reducing his offense level for being only a minor player in 

the conspiracy is without merit. Review of this issue is for 

plain error because Bellamy did not raise this issue at 

sentencing. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732. Bellamy bought, sold, and 

transported controlled substances and he admitted to converting 

cocaine to crack. He was found responsible for eleven kilograms 

3 
of crack cocaine. We find no error in the court’s decision not 

to consider whether Bellamy was a minor participant. See United 

States v. Brooks, 957 F.2d 1138, 1149 (4th Cir. 1992) (A seller 

possesses “a central position in a drug distribution 

conspiracy,” even if he participated in the conspiracy for a 

relatively brief period of time.); see also United States v. 

Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 218-19 (4th Cir. 1989). 

 We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). The 

first step in this review requires us to ensure that the 

district court committed no significant procedural error, such 

as improperly calculating the Guidelines range or treating the 

Guidelines as mandatory. Id. We then consider the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the 

totality of the circumstances. Id. When reviewing a sentence 

on appeal, we presume a sentence within a properly calculated 

Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 

F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). There was no procedural error at 

sentencing and we find Bellamy’s sentence within the Guidelines 

was reasonable. 

 Accordingly, we affirm. In accordance with Anders, we 

have reviewed the record in this case and have found no 

meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Bellamy’s 

conviction and sentence. This court requires counsel inform his 

4 
5 

client, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court 

of the United States for further review. If he requests a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes 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 Bellamy. 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