US v. Demetrius Sitton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:09-cr-00574-HMH-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998456739] [10-4004]

US v. Demetrius Sitton

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4004 Document: 21

Date Filed: 11/01/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. DEMETRIUS L. SITTON, Defendant ­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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4004 Document: 21

Date Filed: 11/01/2010

Page: 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 to (2006). Anders v. Sitton's attorney 386 has filed 738 a brief

pursuant

California,

U.S.

(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 We affirm. Gall v.

a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.

We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. 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). then consider the substantive reasonableness of the We

sentence

imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances and giving "due deference to the district court's decision." 2

Case: 10-4004 Document: 21

Date Filed: 11/01/2010

Page: 3

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. within a properly

On appeal, we presume that a sentence guideline range is reasonable.

calculated

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. to the presentence report, and the Neither party objected 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

Case: 10-4004 Document: 21

Date Filed: 11/01/2010

Page: 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. filed, but counsel If the client requests that a petition be 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 before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

4