United States v. Austin Bull , 469 F. App'x 190 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4766
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AUSTIN SURPRISE BULL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00309-NCT-1)
Submitted: March 6, 2012 Decided: March 15, 2012
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Austin Surprise Bull pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)
(2006), and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. Counsel
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), indicating that he found no meritorious grounds for
appeal, but explaining that Bull believes his 120-month sentence
is greater than necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2011) factors. Finding no error, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
review a sentence for reasonableness, using an abuse of
discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires the court
to ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 160-61
(4th Cir. 2008). If, and only if, this court finds the sentence
procedurally reasonable can the court consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
Bull raises no challenge to the procedural
reasonableness of his sentence. We thus presume that the
district court’s 120-month sentence, which was at the top of
Bull’s properly calculated Guidelines range, is reasonable. See
2
United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
Although Bull suggests that he should have been sentenced to a
lesser term based on his tumultuous upbringing, we conclude that
the district court properly exercised its discretion to reject
Bull’s argument in mitigation. See Evans, 526 F.3d at 162(recognizing that deference to a district court’s sentence is
required because the “sentencing judge is in a superior position
to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the
individual case”). Because Bull has failed to rebut the
presumption this court affords a within-Guidelines sentence, we
affirm his 120-month sentence.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
our obligations under Anders and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Bull, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Bull 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
state that a copy thereof was served on Bull. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4