US v. Rico Titu

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00205-TDS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999420129]. [14-4012]

Appeal: 14-4012

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/21/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICO DEMORRIS TITUS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00205-TDS-1)

Submitted:

August 15, 2014

Decided:

August 21, 2014

Before KING, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4012

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/21/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Rico

Demorris

Titus

appeals

the

seventy-six-month

sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to
possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2012).

Titus’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he
has

found

no

meritorious

grounds

for

appeal

but

questioning

whether the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable.

Titus

has filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging the district
court’s calculation of his offense level and criminal history
category under the Sentencing Guidelines.

We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a
deferential

abuse-of-discretion

standard.”

Gall

v.

United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

This review entails appellate

consideration

procedural

of

both

the

reasonableness of the sentence.
procedural
whether

reasonableness,

the

district

Guidelines range.

we

court

and

Id. at 51.
consider,

properly

among

calculated

substantive

In determining
other
the

things,
advisory

Id.

Titus first questions whether the district court erred
by assessing one criminal history point for a prior conviction
that he claims did not occur.

Because Titus did not object to

the calculation of his criminal history below, this claim is
reviewed for plain error.

See Henderson v. United States, 133
2

Appeal: 14-4012

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/21/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

S. Ct. 1121, 1126-27 (2013) (discussing standard of review);
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010) (same).
Based on this record, we conclude that Titus has failed to show
that

the

district

court’s

conviction was plain error.

consideration

of

the

challenged

See United States v Slade, 631 F.3d

185, 188 (4th Cir. 2011) (“The defendant bears the burden of
establishing that the information relied upon by the district
court — here the [presentence report] — is erroneous.”).
Nor do we find error — plain or otherwise — in the
district

court’s

possession

of

a

imposition
firearm

of

in

a

four-level

connection

with

enhancement
another

for

felony

offense under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)
(2012).

The district court found that Titus’ possession of 3.48

grams of crack cocaine divided and wrapped in five individual
packages

constituted

officers

found

the

a

drug

firearm

trafficking
in

Titus’

offense.
backpack

Because
“in

close

proximity” to the cocaine base found on his person at the time
of his arrest, the district court did not err in imposing this
enhancement.

See id. & cmt. n.14(B)(ii).

Counsel

questions

substantively

reasonable.

the

district

one

the

whether
A

court

the

sentence

within-Guidelines
imposed

on

imposed

sentence,

Titus,

is

was
like

presumed

reasonable on appeal, United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289
(4th Cir. 2012), and the defendant bears the burden to “rebut
3

Appeal: 14-4012

the

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/21/2014

presumption

unreasonable

by

when

demonstrating

measured

[(2012)] factors.”

Pg: 4 of 4

against

that
the

the

[18

sentence

U.S.C.]

is

§ 3553(a)

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d

375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Having

reviewed

the

record

and

the

explanation

given

by

the

district court, we conclude that Titus has not shown that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found
none.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Titus, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Titus requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel

believes

that

counsel

may

in

move

representation.

and

materials

legal
before

this

a

petition

court

for

would

leave

to

be

frivolous,

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Titus.
facts

such

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4