UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

BRYANT SHELDON JORDAN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00207-JAB-1) 

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 22, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Angela Hewlett Miller, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Bryant Sheldon Jordan pled guilty pursuant to a 

written plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute 

cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride and to possess cocaine 

hydrochloride with the intent to manufacture cocaine base, one 

count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, one 

count of possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug 

trafficking crime, one count of conspiracy to launder money, and 

one count of destruction of property to prevent seizure, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 1956(h), 2232(a) 

(2006); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). Jordan was 

determined to be a career offender and sentenced to a total of 

322 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm. 

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether Jordan’s 

sentence is reasonable. Jordan was notified of his right to 

file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so, and the 

Government elected not to file a responding brief. 

When determining a sentence, the district court must 

calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider 

it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 

(2007). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a 

sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly 

2 
outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id.

at 591. Sentences within the applicable Guidelines range may be 

presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. United States 

v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). 

The district court followed the necessary procedural 

steps in sentencing Jordan, appropriately treating the 

Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and 

considering the applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the 

relevant § 3553(a) factors. Furthermore, Jordan’s sentence, 

which is at the low end of the Guidelines range and no greater 

than the applicable statutory maximums, may be presumed 

reasonable. Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse 

its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. 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 move 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 contentions are 

3 
4 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid in the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED