UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4908

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONNIE DAKOTA COVINGTON, a/k/a Dread,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00061-RJC-1)

Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ross Hall Richardson, Acting Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, 

FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Dakota Covington appeals the 151-month sentence 

imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to two 

counts of possessing with intent to distribute a quantity of 

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012). In 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

Covington’s counsel has filed a brief certifying that there are 

no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the 

district court properly classified Covington as a career 

offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) 

§ 4B1.1 (2012). Covington raises a similar question in his 

supplemental brief. We affirm. 

We review Covington’s sentence for reasonableness, 

using “an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We must first review for “significant 

procedural error[s],” including “improperly calculating[] the 

Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] 

§ 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence based on 

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the 

chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Evans, 

526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Only if we conclude that the 

sentence is procedurally reasonable may we consider its 

substantive reasonableness. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 

325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). 
3

Here, the record reveals no procedural or substantive 

error in Covington’s sentence. Prior to his instant offenses, 

Covington sustained felony convictions for a crime of violence 

and a controlled substance offense, thus qualifying him as a 

career offender. USSG § 4B1.1(a). The fact that one of those 

convictions may have been predicated on an Alford* plea is of no 

consequence. See United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 281-82 

(4th Cir. 2012).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We 

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Covington, in writing, of his right 

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Covington requests that a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Covington. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

 * North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970).