Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cleveland D. DRUMWRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-27
Citations: 328 F. App'x 875
Docket Number: No. 08-4927
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Cleveland D. DRUMWRIGHT, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 875–876

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Cleveland D. DRUMWRIGHT, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-4927.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 15, 2009.
Decided: July 27, 2009.
J. Darren Byers, Law Offices of J. Darren Byers, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. David Paul Fol-mar, Jr., Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cleveland Drumwright pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of a substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and was sentenced to 196 months' imprisonment. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), noting no meritorious issues for appeal,' but questioning whether the sentence imposed was reasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court complied with the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11. We further find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Drumwright 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, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (review of sentence is for abuse of discretion).
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 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 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.