US v. Jermoll Burt

Filing 920100421

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5119 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERMOLL BURT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:06-cr-00213-1) Submitted: March 29, 2010 Decided: April 21, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew A. Victor, VICTOR VICTOR & HELGOE, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Erik S. Goes, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jermoll Burt pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute fifty kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2006). district court calculated Burt's advisory The Guidelines imprisonment range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2007) at seventy-eight to ninety-seven months' imprisonment, but granted a downward variance and imposed a seventy-two month sentence. On appeal, Burt's attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious issues for appeal. Burt was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief and, despite several extensions of time, has not done so. The Government declined to file a brief and does not seek to enforce the plea agreement's appeal waiver. * Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Burt does not challenge the district court's denial of his pre-sentencing our motion is to for withdraw abuse 421, of his guilty plea. United We Therefore, States v. review 215 discretion. Cir. Ubakanma, F.3d 424 (4th 2000). Because the Government fails to assert the appellate waiver contained in Burt's plea agreement, we may conduct an Anders review. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007). * 2 closely scrutinize the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy and attach a strong presumption that the plea is final and binding, after determining States v. that the Rule 974 11 hearing 1389, was 1394 that adequate. (4th the Cir. United 1992). court Lambey, the F.2d Critically, transcript reveals district ensured the plea was supported by an independent factual basis, and that Burt entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily with an understanding of the consequences. See United States v. Wilson, Finding that the Rule 11 failed to overcome the 81 F.3d 1300, 1307 (4th Cir. 1996). hearing was adequate and that Burt presumption that his plea is final and binding, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991) (listing factors to consider when addressing motion to withdraw plea). Turning to Burt's sentence, we review it for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. United States, 552 U.S. the 38, 51 (2007). The Gall v. court heard and 18 district and correctly argument allocution calculated from from the advisory on Guidelines range parties The the appropriate considered the sentence relevant Burt. court U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006) factors, addressing on the record the nature and circumstances Burt's of the offense, for a Burt's history and characteristics, request 3 downward variance considering he had served a 169-day sentence for a state conviction arising out of an offense that occurred during the federal conspiracy, and the need to impose a sentence that was sufficient, but not greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals. We find no error by the district court in See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 Furthermore, the district calculating Burt's Guidelines range. (providing standard of review). court's statements at the sentencing hearing clearly reflect a valid and individualized assessment under 3553(a) and justify the sentence imposed. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-75 (4th Cir. 2007). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Burt's conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Burt, in writing, of the right to petition review. the Supreme Court of the United States for further If Burt 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 Burt. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 4 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?