UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5081

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

CHRISTOPHER THOMAS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief 

District Judge. (3:07-cr-01251-JFA-1) 

Submitted: July 7, 2009 Decided: July 21, 2009 

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Beattie B. Ashmore, PRICE ASHMORE & BEASLEY P.A., Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Christopher Thomas pleaded guilty to possession with 

intent to distribute cocaine base, marijuana, and ecstasy, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006), and carrying a firearm 

in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 

U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2009). The district court 

sentenced Thomas to 117 months of imprisonment. His attorney 

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), raising one issue but stating that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal. Thomas was informed of his right 

to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. We 

affirm.

In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the 

district court erred in sentencing Thomas to 117 months of 

imprisonment. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying 

an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United 

States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so 

doing, we first examine the sentence for “significant procedural 

error,” including: “failing to calculate (or improperly 

calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines 

as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) 

[(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 

2 
sentence . . . .” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. This court “then 

consider[s] the substantive reasonableness of the sentence 

imposed.” Id. “Substantive reasonableness review entails 

taking into account the ‘totality of the circumstances, 

including the extent of any variance from the [g]uidelines 

range.’” United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 

2007) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). If the sentence is 

within the guidelines range, we apply a presumption of 

reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 

S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of 

reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence). 

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court committed no reversible procedural error in 

sentencing Thomas. Furthermore, we conclude that Thomas’ 

within-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. 

 We have examined the entire record in accordance with 

the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues 

for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district 

court. This court requires that counsel inform Thomas, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Thomas 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 withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

3 
4 

state that a copy thereof was served on Thomas. 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