US v. Brandon Turner

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00017-WO-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999423989]. [14-4060]

Appeal: 14-4060

Doc: 23

Filed: 08/27/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4060

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON MARQUIS TURNER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cr-00017-WO-1)

Submitted:

August 25, 2014

Decided:

August 27, 2014

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit
Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Winston-Salem,
North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greensboro,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4060

Doc: 23

Filed: 08/27/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Brandon Marquis Turner pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to maintaining a drug involved premises, in violation
of

21

U.S.C.

firearms

in

§

856(a)(1)

furtherance

(2012)
of

a

(Count
drug

One),

and

trafficking

possessing
crime,

in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2012) (Count Two).
The

district

court

sentenced

Turner

to

twenty-one

months’

imprisonment on Count One, a downward variance from the twentyseven to thirty-three-month Guidelines range, and a consecutive
sentence of sixty months, the statutory mandatory minimum, on
Count Two. *

Turner appeals.

Counsel
California,

386

has
U.S.

filed
738

a

brief

(1967),

pursuant

stating

that

to

Anders

there

are

v.
no

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Turner’s
sentence is reasonable.

Turner was advised of his right to file

*

The district court initially sentenced Turner to thirty
months on Count One and a consecutive sixty months on Count Two,
and Turner appealed.
Without addressing the merits of the
appeal, this court granted the parties’ joint motion to remand
for a new sentencing hearing where the district court could
consider the applicability, if any, of United States v. Davis,
720 F.3d 215, 217, 219-20 (4th Cir. 2013).
In light of Davis,
the district court removed three criminal history points from
Turner’s criminal history score, reducing his criminal history
category to V and his Guidelines range on Count One to twentyseven to thirty-one months.
The court resentenced Turner to a
downward variance sentence of twenty-one months on Count One and
sixty months on Count Two. It is from this sentence that Turner
now appeals.

2

Appeal: 14-4060

a

Doc: 23

pro

se

Filed: 08/27/2014

supplemental

brief,

Pg: 3 of 4

but

he

did

not

file

one.

We

affirm.
We review Turner’s sentence for reasonableness “under
a

deferential

abuse-of-discretion

standard.”

Gall

v.

United

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

A sentence is procedurally

reasonable

calculates

if

the

court

properly

the

defendant’s

advisory Guidelines range, gives the parties an opportunity to
argue

for

an

appropriate

sentence,

considers

the

18

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, does not rely on clearly erroneous
facts, and sufficiently explains the selected sentence.
49-51.

We

reasonable.

conclude

that

Further,

Turner’s

Turner

has

sentence
also

is

failed

Id. at

procedurally
to

rebut

the

presumption that his below-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable.

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

2012) (explaining presumption); United States v. Montes-Pineda,
445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (explaining that defendant may
rebut presumption by showing “that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the § 3553(a) factors” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
In
remainder
meritorious

of

accordance

with

the

record

grounds

for

district court’s judgment.

in

Anders,
this

appeal.

we

case
We

have
and

reviewed
have

therefore

found
affirm

the
no
the

This court requires that counsel

inform Turner, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
3

Appeal: 14-4060

Court

Doc: 23

of

the

Filed: 08/27/2014

United

States

Pg: 4 of 4

for

further

review.

If

Turner

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 Turner.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4