UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4880

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

EULALIA HEADEN, a/k/a Eulalia Jean Headen, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, 

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00169-1) 

Submitted: March 16, 2009 Decided: March 27, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Debra Kilgore, BURTON, KILGORE & LAZENBY, PLLC, Princeton, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Eulalia Jean Headen appeals the district court’s 

judgment imposing a sentence of fifteen months in prison after 

Headen pled guilty to an information charging her with using a 

communication facility, a telephone, to facilitate the 

commission of felony possession with intent to distribute 

hydrocodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (2006). On 

appeal, counsel for Headen has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious 

issues for appeal, but raising the issue of whether the district 

court erred by imposing an unreasonable sentence. Headen was 

informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but 

elected not to do so. Finding no error, we affirm. 

 We review Headen’s sentence for abuse of discretion. 

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). The first 

step in this review requires us to ensure that the district 

court committed no significant procedural error, such as 

improperly calculating the guidelines range. United States v. 

Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 

2525 (2008). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of 

the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the 

circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. When reviewing a 

sentence on appeal, we presume that a sentence within a properly 

calculated guideline range is reasonable. United States v. 

2 
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). We also give due 

deference to the district court’s decision that the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008) factors justify imposing a 

variant sentence and to its determination regarding the extent 

of any variance. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 474 

(4th Cir. 2007). 

 We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing 

Headen, and that her sentence is procedurally and substantively 

reasonable. The district court correctly calculated Headen’s 

guideline range and sentenced her below that range after 

considering that Headen timely received the presentence 

investigation report in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 

32(e)(2)(g) and after considering the § 3553(a) factors 

justifying the imposition of a variant sentence. 

 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. 

This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, 

of her 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 in this court for leave to 

3 
4 

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