United States of America v. Allen Marshell McCall, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALLEN MARSHELL MCCALL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00104-FDW-CH-10)
Submitted: May 8, 2009 Decided: June 9, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard A. Culler, CULLER LAW FIRM, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

PER CURIAM:
Following a lengthy jury trial, Allen Marshell
McCall, Jr., was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute and to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). McCall was sentenced to
the statutory mandatory minimum of 240 months. See 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2008) (prescribing twenty-year
minimum for cases involving five grams or more of crack and a
prior felony drug conviction). Finding no error, we affirm.
Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are
no meritorious issues for appeal. McCall was notified of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not do so.
The Government elected not to file a responsive brief.
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed
the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal. The overwhelming evidence presented at trial
established that McCall was involved in “‘a loosely-knit
association of members linked . . . by their mutual interest in
sustaining the overall enterprise of catering to the ultimate
demands of a particular drug consumption market’” — Mecklenburg
County. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 858 (4th Cir.
1996) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Banks, 10 F.3d 1044,
1054 (4th Cir. 1993)).
2

-- 2 of 4 --

Moreover, the district court followed the necessary
procedural steps in sentencing McCall, appropriately treating
the Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering
the applicable Guidelines range, and referencing 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006). See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586,
596 (2007). McCall’s 240-month sentence, which is the
Guidelines range and the statutory mandatory minimum, may be
presumed reasonable by this court. See United States v. Pauley,
511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Thus, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. See
Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 591 (stating appellate review of sentence,
“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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 a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move 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
3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --