UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DWIGHT EUGENE MASON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 08-4021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DWIGHT EUGENE MASON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr., 

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00134-WO-1; 1:07-cr-00281-WO-1) 

Submitted: June 11, 2009 Decided: July 17, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit 

Judges. 
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Angela Hewlett Miller, Patrick Auld, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
PER CURIAM: 

 Dwight Eugene Mason pled guilty to possession with 

intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B) (2006). He appeals the imposition of 

concurrent sentences of 262 months’ imprisonment for that 

offense, and twenty-four months’ imprisonment for violation of a 

supervised release term imposed following a prior conviction for 

possession of firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). 

 On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious issues 

for appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred in 

denying a downward departure based upon Mason’s career offender 

designation, resulting in a sentencing range more severe than 

necessary in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 

(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008).∗

 Mason filed a pro se supplemental 

brief, contending that the district court erred in sentencing 

him as a career offender, and that the sentence imposed was 

unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm. 

 ∗

 Given the nature of counsel’s arguments we construe his 

contention as a request for a downward variance. We note that a 

district court’s decision not to depart downward from the 

Sentencing Guidelines is unreviewable so long as the district 

court understood it possessed the authority to depart. See

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

3 
4 

 We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 11. We further find that the district court did not abuse 

its discretion in sentencing Mason as a career offender, and 

imposed sentences that are procedurally and substantively 

reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 

(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 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 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 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