UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5222

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

LAWRENCE LEE HARRIS, II, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr., 

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00429-WO-5) 

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: October 2, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Todd A. Smith, LAW FIRM OF TODD A. SMITH, Graham, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 

 Lawrence Lee Harris, II, appeals the district court’s 

judgment imposing his conviction and sentence of 262 months’ 

imprisonment for distribution of 22.7 grams of cocaine base in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006), following 

his guilty plea. 

 On appeal, counsel 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. Harris filed a pro se supplemental brief, 

contending that the district court erred in sentencing him as a 

career offender and imposed an unreasonable sentence, and that 

counsel was ineffective in failing to address the sentencing 

issues. Specifically, Harris argued that the district court 

erroneously calculated his guidelines range by holding him 

accountable for 22.7 grams of cocaine base and 22.7 grams of 

methylenedioxymethamphetamine, when he had only pled guilty to 

charges involving cocaine base. Furthermore, Harris contended 

that his criminal history category was miscalculated because his 

predicate felony drug convictions were minor, some misdemeanor 

charges were concurrent and consolidated, and his felony 

conviction for solicitation to commit arson was not a violent 

felony. Finding no error, we affirm. 

2 
 We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11. We further find that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in sentencing Harris as a career offender, 

and imposed a sentence that is procedurally and substantively 

reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 

586, 597 (2007) (review of sentence is for abuse of discretion). 

The record supports the imposition of a sentence based upon a 

finding that Harris was responsible for 22.7 grams of cocaine 

base and 22.7 grams of methylenedioxymethamphetamine. 

Furthermore, we find Harris’ predicate felony drug convictions 

were not related and were sufficient without consideration of 

any other convictions to support the criminal history category 

as calculated by the district court. Because we find no 

sentencing error, Harris’ argument that counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance regarding sentencing necessarily fails. 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

further deny Harris’ motion for stay of the appeal/hold in 

abeyance. 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 

3 
4 

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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED