UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4579

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

SEBERT JUNIOR MAXWELL, III, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, 

Jr., District Judge. (2:07-cr-00228-1) 

Submitted: October 31, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, 

Appellate Counsel, Christian M. Capece, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. John 

Christopher Krivonyak, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Sebert Junior Maxwell, III pled guilty to possession 

with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and the district 

court sentenced him to 151 months in prison and three years of 

supervised release. On appeal, Maxwell’s attorney has filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for 

appeal but raising the issue of whether Maxwell’s 151-month 

sentence as a career offender is reasonable. Maxwell has filed 

a pro se supplemental brief raising the issues of whether he was 

entitled to any reduction in his sentence under Kimbrough v. 

United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), and whether he was 

properly sentenced as a career offender. We affirm. 

We review Maxwell’s sentence for abuse of discretion. 

See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 590 (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 guideline range. United States 

v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 

128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). We then consider the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the 

totality of the circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. When 

reviewing a sentence on appeal, we presume that a sentence 

2 
within a properly calculated guideline range is reasonable. 

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). 

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing 

Maxwell, and his sentence at the low end of his advisory 

guideline range is reasonable. The district court properly 

determined that Maxwell was a career offender and his base 

offense level was thirty-two under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual § 4B1.1(b), rather than the lower base offense level 

under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(8). After a three-level reduction for 

acceptance of responsibility, Maxwell’s total offense level was 

twenty-nine. With a criminal history category VI, Maxwell’s 

advisory guideline range was 151 to 188 months in prison. 

At sentencing, Maxwell conceded that he was properly 

sentenced as a career offender under the guidelines, but he 

argued that the district court should sentence him below his 

guideline range because his cocaine base offenses involved 

relatively small drug amounts and they did not involve a weapon 

or violence. However, in reviewing Maxwell’s criminal history, 

the district court found that he was not only a career offender 

under the guidelines but a career offender in fact, since he had 

made a career of drug trafficking. Considering the sentencing 

factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), including the need to 

promote respect for the law, to protect the public from his 

3 
4 

criminal activities, and to avoid unwarranted disparities in 

sentencing, the district court reasonably concluded it was 

appropriate to sentence Maxwell within his guideline range. The 

court took Maxwell’s arguments in consideration, however, by 

sentencing him at the low end of his guideline range. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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