United States v. Bobby Turrentine , 546 F. App'x 270 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4336
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BOBBY JERMAINE TURRENTINE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00153-TDS-1)
Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Leonard, LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN LEONARD, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Jermaine Turrentine appeals his conviction and
eighty-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
possession with intent to distribute ten grams of cocaine base,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012), and possession of
a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2012). On appeal,
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal but questioning whether the district court imposed an
unreasonable sentence. Turrentine was notified of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The
government has declined to file a response brief. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We “must first ensure that the
district court committed no significant procedural error,”
including improper calculation of the Guidelines range,
insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors, or inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d
572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting same). If we find no
procedural error, we examine the substantive reasonableness of a
2
sentence under “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552
U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not
greater than necessary,” to satisfy the goals of sentencing.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume on appeal that a within-
Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, and the
defendant bears the burden to “rebut the presumption by
demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda,
445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
Our review of the record reveals that Turrentine’s
sentence was reasonable. The district court properly calculated
Turrentine’s Guidelines range and sentenced him within that
range and the applicable statutory range. The court provided a
lengthy explanation of the basis for its sentence, carefully
grounded in the § 3553(a) factors. Further, Turrentine has
failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his
within-Guidelines sentence. See Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 379.
We therefore discern no abuse of discretion in the sentence
imposed.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Turrentine’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Turrentine, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
3
further review. If Turrentine 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 Turrentine.
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
4