United States v. Timothy Burns ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4030
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY LOUIS BURNS, a/k/a Timothy Barnes,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:13-cr-00050-FL-1)
Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Louis Burns pleaded guilty to possession with
intent to distribute twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012), and was sentenced
to 100 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Burns argues that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012).
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In determining substantive
reasonableness, we must “take into account the totality of the
circumstances.” Id. at 51. We presume a sentence within or
below a properly calculated Guidelines range to be substantively
reasonable. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir.
2012). Such a presumption is rebutted only if the defendant
shows “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).
Our review of the record confirms that the district
court adequately considered Burns’ request for a recalculation
of his Guidelines range using a 1:1 crack to powder cocaine
ratio and did not abuse its discretion in declining to do so.
Burns offers no sufficient basis to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines sentence. We
2
therefore 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3