US v. Marcus Burney

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:12-cr-00068-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999670175]. [14-4787]

Appeal: 14-4787

Doc: 44

Filed: 10/01/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4787

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS TERRELL BURNEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (7:12-cr-00068-D-1)

Submitted:

September 17, 2015

Decided:

October 1, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

EJ Hurst II, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G.
Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne
V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4787

Doc: 44

Filed: 10/01/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Marcus
possession

Terrell
with

Burney

intent

appeals

to

his

distribute

96-month
cocaine

sentence
base

for

(crack),

cocaine, and a quantity of hydrocodone combination product, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012).

On appeal, he raises

four issues, whether: (1) his right to due process was violated
by interviews and testimony obtained after a continuance motion
resulting

in

a

prejudicial

misjoinder

of

charges;

(2)

his

sentence was procedurally unreasonable because of drug weight
established by the testimony of a cooperating witness; (3) his
sentence

was

procedurally

unreasonable

because

an

outdated

conviction was used to enhance his criminal history; and (4) his
sentencing violated due process because his sentence was based
on acquitted and uncharged conduct found by a preponderance of
the evidence.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

First, we normally review due process and misjoinder claims
de novo, see United States v. Shealey, 641 F.3d 627, 633 (4th
Cir. 2011) (providing review standard for due process claims);
see also United States v. Hawkins, 776 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir.
2015)

(providing

review

standard

for

misjoinder

claims);

however, Burney admits these claims are raised for the first
time on appeal, and we thus review them for plain error.

United

States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 215 (4th Cir. 2005) (providing
plain error review standard).

Our review of the record and the
2

Appeal: 14-4787

Doc: 44

Filed: 10/01/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

parties’ arguments reveals no plain error by the district court.
Id.
Next, Burney contests the drug weight attributed to him for
purposes of sentencing.

More specifically, he alleges that the

cooperating witness’ testimony was insufficient to attribute 3.2
grams of crack to him and that the district court erred by using
11.7 grams of drug weight, due to packaging, rather than the
9.35 grams of the drugs alone.

We review criminal sentences for

reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.
Rivera–Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 100 (4th Cir. 2012).
step

requires

this

court

to

ensure

that

the

The first

district

court

committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Sentencing Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, selecting a sentence
based

on

clearly

erroneous

facts,

or

failing

to

adequately

explain the chosen sentence — including an explanation for any
deviation from the Guidelines range.

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51;

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328-29 (4th Cir. 2009).
The second step is substantive reasonableness review, but
Burney

alleges

only

procedural

error

on

appeal

—

here,

the

incorrect calculation of the quantity of drugs attributable to
him.

We review this claim for clear error, United States v.
3

Appeal: 14-4787

Doc: 44

Filed: 10/01/2015

Pg: 4 of 5

Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999), and find none in the
district court’s finding of 3.2 grams of crack attributable to
Burney based on the cooperating witness’ testimony.
241).

Moreover,

district

court

Burney

admits

incorrectly

on

counted

appeal
his

that

drug

(J.A. 237whether

packaging

the

weight

would not alter his offense level and thus any error would be
harmless.
Third, Burney contends that the district court incorrectly
counted

one

completed

of

his

more

prior

than

ten

sentences,
years

which

before

he

the

asserts

instant

was

offense

commenced, in violation of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §
4A1.2(e)(2) (2013).

Burney concedes we review this issue only

for plain error, however, and we find none.

White, 405 F.3d at

215.
Finally, Burney objects to the fact that he was sentenced
based on acquitted conduct.

We have held, however, that courts

may “consider acquitted conduct in establishing drug amounts for
the

purpose

of

sentencing,

so

long

as

the

established by a preponderance of the evidence.”

amounts

are

United States

v. Perry, 560 F.3d 246, 258 (4th Cir. 2009); see also United
States

v.

Watts,

jury’s

verdict

of

519

U.S.

acquittal

148,
does

157
not

(1997)

(holding

prevent

the

that

“a

sentencing

court from considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge,
so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of
4

Appeal: 14-4787

Doc: 44

Filed: 10/01/2015

the evidence”).
for

Burney’s

Pg: 5 of 5

The district court found the necessary facts

drug

weight

and

other

preponderance of the evidence.

sentencing

factors

Perry, 560 F.3d at 258.

by

a

Thus,

this claim fails.
Accordingly, we affirm.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

5