United States v. William Burdette, Jr. , 458 F. App'x 250 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4044
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM LEE BURDETTE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00318-WDQ-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: December 16, 2011
Before KING, KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew R. Szekely, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,
Kristi N. O’Malley, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Lee Burdette, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to one count of transportation of child
pornography in interstate and foreign commerce by means of
computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2252A(a)(1), 2256 (West
2000 & Supp. 2011). The district court sentenced Burdette to
135 months in prison. Burdette appeals, and we affirm.
On appeal, Burdette claims that his sentence was
procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to
adequately explain the sentence, as required by 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(c) (West Supp. 2011). This court reviews a sentence
under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this
review requires us to “ensure that the district court committed
no significant procedural error,” such as incorrectly
calculating the Guidelines range or “failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence.” Id. The court then considers the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into
account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. This court
presumes on appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated
Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
In explaining a sentence, the “sentencing judge should
articulate enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has
2
considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for
exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority,” but when the
judge decides to sentence within the Guidelines range, “doing so
will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Where the defendant
“presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different
sentence, however, the judge will normally go further and
explain why he has rejected those arguments.” Id. at 357; see
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
While a district court must consider the statutory factors and
explain its sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553(a)
or discuss every factor on the record, particularly when the
district court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated
guidelines range. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345
(4th Cir. 2006).
The record discloses that here, the district court
properly calculated the Guidelines range, heard argument from
both parties, and announced its decision to sentence Burdette
within the Guidelines range. Its explanation for this sentence
was not lengthy, but it made clear the court’s disagreement with
defense counsel’s argument as to the seriousness of the offense
and the importance of consistency in sentencing. The court
stated that a Guidelines sentence fit Burdette’s circumstances
and provided the desired uniformity. Although the district
3
court did not touch on every point raised by defense counsel,
its explanation was sufficient to show its consideration of
Burdette’s arguments and the reasoned basis for its decision.
Rita, 551 U.S. at 356.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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
4