US v. Timothy Burn

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:13-cr-00050-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999444548].. [14-4030]

Appeal: 14-4030

Doc: 37

Filed: 09/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4030

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY LOUIS BURNS, a/k/a Timothy Barnes,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:13-cr-00050-FL-1)

Submitted:

September 25, 2014

Decided:

September 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4030

Doc: 37

Filed: 09/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Timothy Louis Burns pleaded guilty to possession with
intent to distribute twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012), and was sentenced
to 100 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Burns argues that his

sentence is substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012).
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a
deferential

abuse-of-discretion

States,

U.S.

552

38,

41

(2007).

standard.”
In

Gall

determining

v.

United

substantive

reasonableness, we must “take into account the totality of the
circumstances.”

Id. at 51.

We presume a sentence within or

below a properly calculated Guidelines range to be substantively
reasonable.
2012).

United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir.

Such a presumption is rebutted only if the defendant

shows “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the § 3553(a) factors.”

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445

F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006).
Our review of the record confirms that the district
court adequately considered Burns’ request for a recalculation
of his Guidelines range using a 1:1 crack to powder cocaine
ratio and did not abuse its discretion in declining to do so.
Burns offers no sufficient basis to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness

afforded

his

within-Guidelines
2

sentence.

We

Appeal: 14-4030

Doc: 37

therefore
dispense

Filed: 09/29/2014

affirm
with

contentions

are

the

oral

Pg: 3 of 3

judgment
argument

adequately

of

the

because

presented

in

district
the
the

facts

court.

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3