**UN PUBLISHED** 
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 Cou rt 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 un published 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.
Unpublis hed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Charlie Renzell Strother pled guilty before a magistrate judge 1

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). T he district court simply had no discretion to sentence Strother below the statutory minimum, United States v. Robin son , 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 distri ct 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 sentenc e imposed was reasonable. W e affirm the conviction and sentence , but remand for the district court to correct the written judgment to reflect the offense to which
St r other 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 h earings 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, errone ously 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 e ntire record i n accordance with Anders , w e 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 cou nsel 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 thi s 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

co urt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED