United States of America v. Sirrico Fitzgerald Burnside

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SIRRICO FITZGERALD BURNSIDE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:12-cr-00220-TMC-1)
Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: July 15, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sirrico Fitzgerald Burnside pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute
heroin, possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine,
and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2006) and 18
U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006). Based on a total offense level of 31
and a criminal history category of VI, Burnside’s advisory
Guidelines range was 188 to 235 months imprisonment. The
district court imposed a sentence of 188 months. Burnside
appeals.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
Burnside’s 188-month sentence is reasonable. Although advised
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Burnside has
not done so.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.;
see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010).
In determining the procedural reasonableness of a sentence, this
court considers whether the district court properly calculated

-- 2 of 4 --

3
the defendant’s Guidelines range, treated the Sentencing
Guidelines as advisory, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties,
and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552
U.S. at 51. A sentence imposed within the properly calculated
Guidelines range is presumed reasonable by this court. United
States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010),
cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 3078 (2011).
We find that the sentence imposed by the district
court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The
district court properly calculated Burnside’s sentencing range
under the advisory Guidelines, considered the relevant § 3553(a)
factors, and imposed a sentence within the applicable sentencing
range. Burnside has not overcome the rebuttable presumption of
reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. See
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Burnside’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Burnside, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Burnside 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

-- 3 of 4 --

4
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Burnside.
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

-- 4 of 4 --