United States v. John Burkey , 564 F. App'x 3 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4774
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN A. BURKEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (6:13-cr-00106-1)
Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014
Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth
Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Erik S. Goes, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John A. Burkey, pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2012). The district court sentenced Burkey
to 100 months’ imprisonment, within his properly calculated
Guidelines range. On appeal, Burkey challenges the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, contending that it is greater
than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review the district court’s sentence, “whether
inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines
range[,] under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). When reviewing a
sentence for substantive reasonableness, we “examine[] the
totality of the circumstances,” and, if the sentence is within
the properly-calculated Guidelines range, apply a presumption on
appeal that the sentence is substantively reasonable. United
States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216-17 (4th Cir. 2010).
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) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that Burkey has failed to overcome the
appellate presumption of reasonableness afforded his sentence.
2
The district court reasonably concluded that Burkey’s extensive
criminal history warranted a sentence that would protect the
public and deter Burkey from engaging in further criminal
conduct. Notably, the district court did not ignore the
positive changes Burkey had made in his life and declined to
impose the statutory maximum sentence for that reason. To the
extent Burkey argues that the district court emphasized his
criminal history over other sentencing factors, we reiterate
that “district courts have extremely broad discretion when
determining the weight to be given each of the § 3553(a)
factors.” United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir.
2011). In sum, we conclude that Burkey’s within-Guidelines
sentence is not greater than necessary to accomplish the goals
of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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