United States v. Sergio Summerville ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4099 Doc: 36 Filed: 08/28/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4099
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SERGIO SHAW SUMMERVILLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:22-cr-00096-BO-2)
Submitted: August 16, 2024 Decided: August 28, 2024
Before WYNN, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Rudolph A. Ashton, III, DUNN PITTMAN SKINNER & ASHTON, PLLC,
New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney,
David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Julie A. Childress, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4099 Doc: 36 Filed: 08/28/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Sergio Shaw Summerville pled guilty to four counts of distributing crack cocaine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced Summerville to 48
months’ imprisonment, and he now appeals. On appeal, Summerville challenges his
sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a “deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 52 (2007). In doing so, we first
consider whether the sentencing court committed “significant procedural error,” including
improperly calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to sufficiently consider the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and failing to adequately explain the sentence imposed. Id. at
51; see United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020).
If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, we then consider its substantive
reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances. Nance, 957 F.3d at 212. The
sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the
purposes” of sentencing. 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) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Upon review, we find Summerville’s within-Guidelines sentence to be both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court expressly considered the
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4099 Doc: 36 Filed: 08/28/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
§ 3553(a) factors and adequately explained its rejection of Summerville’s request for a
downward variance and its reasons for imposing the 48-month sentence. Moreover,
Summerville has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness applied to his sentence.
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