UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4381

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

STEVEN ERIC OWENS, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(6:05-cr-00814-HFF-1) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra 

Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Steven Eric Owens appeals from his convictions and 

160-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to 

possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, 

possession of equipment that could be used to manufacture 

methamphetamine, endangering life while manufacturing or 

attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, and using or carrying 

a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. 

Owens= attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing the reasonableness of the 

sentence, but stating that there was no merit to the appeal. 

Owens was informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se 

brief, but has declined to do so. We affirm Owens= convictions 

and sentence. 

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 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 

2 
3 

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

F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Rita v. United States, 

127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of 

rebuttable presumption of correctness of within guideline 

sentence). The district court followed the necessary steps in 

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

sentence of 160 months of imprisonment. We therefore affirm his 

convictions and sentence. 

As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 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 renew his motion 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