UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4159

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

GEORGE ODOM, JR., 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., 

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00190-NCT-1) 

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

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 George Odom, Jr., appeals from his conviction and 120-

month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession 

of a firearm by a convicted felon. Odom’s attorney filed a 

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

challenging the four-level enhancement to Odom’s offense level 

based on the finding that he possessed the firearm in connection 

with another felony, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) 

§ 2K2.1 (2007), and the reasonableness of the sentence, but 

stating that there was no merit to the appeal. Odom filed a pro 

se brief arguing these same issues and contending that his 

criminal history category was improperly computed and 

challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) 

(2000). Our review of the record discloses no reversible error; 

accordingly, we affirm Odom’s conviction 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 

2 
that a sentence within the properly calculated sentencing 

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 Odom, and we find no abuse of discretion in the 

sentence of 120 months of imprisonment. The district court did 

not clearly err in finding that the gun had the potential to 

facilitate the sale of marijuana, see USSG § 2K2.1, comment. 

(n.14), thus, we reject Odom’s challenge to the four-level 

enhancement for possession of the firearm in connection with 

another felony offense. 

 Odom argues that his criminal history was improperly 

calculated, asserting that he was sentenced on the same day for 

two of his prior convictions, therefore they should not have 

been counted separately. Because the error, if any, would not 

affect Odom’s sentence, we find no plain error in the 

computation of Odom’s criminal history category. See United 

States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (providing standard); 

USSG ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing table). 

 Odom also challenges the constitutionality of 

§ 922(g)(1) as a violation of the separation of federal and 

3 
4 

state powers clause of the Constitution. We find no merit to 

this contention. See United States v. McKenzie, 99 F.3d 813, 

820 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Collins, 61 F.3d 1379, 

1383-84 (9th Cir. 1995). 

 As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We 

therefore affirm Odom’s conviction and sentence. 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