UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4372

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RUBEN TODD-MURGAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00127-WO-1)

Submitted: February 4, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Carlyle Sherrill, III, SHERRILL & CAMERON, PLLC, Salisbury, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ruben Todd-Murgas pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to one count of possession with intent to distribute 

500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing cocaine 

hydrochloride in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) 

(2006). The district court found that this conviction 

constituted a violation of the terms of his supervised release 

on two 1998 drug-related convictions in the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of New York. The court sentenced 

Todd-Murgas to a term of imprisonment of 177 months on the 

cocaine distribution conviction plus two concurrent terms of 

imprisonment of twenty-four months for the supervised release 

violation to run consecutively to the 177-month term.

On appeal, Todd-Murgas’s counsel filed a brief 

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

he states that he finds no meritorious issues for appeal. 

Counsel does call two issues to our attention: (1) whether the 

district court erred in attributing 480 kilograms of cocaine to 

Todd-Murgas; and (2) whether the district court erred by 

imposing a consecutive sentence for the supervised release 

violation. Todd-Murgas was advised of his right to file a pro 

se supplemental brief but has not filed a brief. The Government 

chose not to file a response.
3

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that 

Todd-Murgas is not entitled to relief. This court reviews a 

sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. See

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step 

in this review requires the court to inspect for procedural 

reasonableness by ensuring that the district court committed no 

significant procedural errors. See United States v. Boulware, 

604 F.3d 832, 837-38 (4th Cir. 2010). A reviewing court then 

considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence 

imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

We review a district court’s calculation of the 

quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant for sentencing 

purposes for clear error. United States v. Carter, 300 F.3d 

415, 425 (4th Cir. 2002). “A district court’s approximation of 

the amount of drugs is not clearly erroneous if supported by 

competent evidence in the record.” United States v. Randall, 

171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. 

Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016, 1019 (4th Cir. 1992)). “When objecting 

to drug quantities as set forth in the Presentence Report, the 

defendant has an affirmative duty to show that the information 

contained in the report is inaccurate or unreliable.” Carter, 

300 F.3d at 425 (citing United States v. Terry, 916 F.2d 157, 
4

162 (4th Cir. 1990)). “A district court’s finding of quantity 

is not erroneous if it is based on evidence possessing 

sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable 

accuracy.” Uwaeme, 975 F.2d at 1021. Todd-Murgas has failed to 

undermine the reliability of his own statement regarding the 

drug weights he distributed. We accordingly decline to conclude

that the district court’s finding was clearly erroneous. Nor 

has Todd-Murgas demonstrated that the district court abused its 

discretion in electing to impose a consecutive term of 

imprisonment for his supervised release violation.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Todd-Murgas’s conviction and sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Todd-Murgas, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Todd-Murgas 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 Todd-Murgas.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
5

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED