UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4137

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARLIE RENZELL STROTHER, a/k/a Rallo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:07-cr-00061-FDW-15)

Submitted: August 5, 2010 Decided: September 1, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Joseph Blackwood, III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Edward R. Ryan, United States Attorney, Amy 

Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charlie Renzell Strother pled guilty before a

magistrate judge1

We conclude without difficulty that the 120 month 

sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable. See Gall 

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (review of sentence is 

for abuse of discretion). The district court simply had no 

discretion to sentence Strother below the statutory minimum, 

United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005), 

and his sentence to the mandatory minimum is thus per se 

reasonable. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th 

to distributing five grams or more of cocaine 

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006). 

The district court imposed the statutory mandatory minimum 

sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has 

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

(1967), noting no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning 

whether the sentence imposed was reasonable. We affirm the 

conviction and sentence, but remand for the district court to 

correct the written judgment to reflect the offense to which 

Strother pled guilty. 

 1 Strother consented to enter his plea before the magistrate 

judge. See United States v. Osborne, 345 F.3d 281, 285 (4th 

Cir. 2003) (allowing magistrate judges to conduct plea hearings 

if a defendant waives his right to proceed before a district 

judge).
3

Cir. 2008). The judgment, however, repeated an error contained 

in the presentence report, erroneously describing the offense in 

Count Thirty-Three as possession with intent to distribute 

cocaine base, rather than the distribution of cocaine base 

offense with which Strother was charged and to which he pled 

guilty.2

Therefore, after reviewing the entire record in 

accordance with Anders, we affirm Strother’s conviction and 

sentence, but remand so that the written judgment can be 

corrected to reflect the offense to which Strother pled guilty--

distribution of cocaine base. 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

 

 2 Because both possession with intent to distribute cocaine 

base and distribution of cocaine base are offenses under 21 

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and carry the same penalties, 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(B), the clerical error in the judgment did not 

affect Strother’s sentence or otherwise prejudice him.
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED