United States of America v. Demetrius L. Sitton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4004
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DEMETRIUS L. SITTON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:09-cr-00574-HMH-2)
Submitted: October 12, 2010 Decided: November 1, 2010
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Bradley Bennett, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius L. Sitton appeals his sentence to forty
months in prison and three years of supervised release after
pleading guilty to possessing counterfeit ten dollar Federal
Reserve Notes with intent to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2, 472 (2006), and making counterfeit one hundred dollar
Federal Reserve Notes with intent to defraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 471 (2006). Sitton’s attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court erred
in sentencing Sitton to forty months in prison and three years
of supervised release. Sitton was notified of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. 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 improperly calculating
the guideline range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence.
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We
then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances
and giving “due deference to the district court’s decision.”

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. On appeal, we presume that a sentence
within a properly calculated guideline range is reasonable.
United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing
Sitton, and his sentence is reasonable. Neither party objected
to the presentence report, and the district court properly
calculated Sitton’s advisory guideline range was thirty-three to
forty-one months in prison based on a total offense level of
thirteen and criminal history category VI. His offense level
included a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility,
which was the maximum reduction applicable for his offense level
under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2008). The
probation officer recommended a sentence at the high end of the
guideline range based on Sitton’s criminal history.
As the district court pointed out, Sitton had twenty
criminal history points, when only thirteen were needed for the
highest criminal history category. Sitton requested a sentence
at the low end of his guideline range, noting he had cooperated
immediately and had taken responsibility. The district court
considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and
the guidelines as advisory only, and reasonably determined a
sentence of forty months in prison followed by three years of
supervised release was appropriate in Sitton’s case.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing,
of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If the client 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 the client.
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 of 4 --