US v. Bobby Turrentine, No. 13-4336 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4336 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BOBBY JERMAINE TURRENTINE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00153-TDS-1) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Leonard, LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN LEONARD, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bobby Jermaine Turrentine appeals his conviction and eighty-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute ten grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012), and possession of a firearm in violation of furtherance 18 U.S.C. of a drug trafficking § 924(c)(1)(A) crime, (2012). On in appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. Turrentine was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The government the has declined to file a response brief. For reasons that follow, we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). district including court committed improper no Gall v. United We must first ensure that the significant calculation of the procedural error, Guidelines range, insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, or inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting same). If we find no procedural error, we examine the substantive reasonableness of a 2 sentence under the totality of the circumstances. U.S. at 51. Gall, 552 The sentence imposed must be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to satisfy the goals of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume on appeal that a within- Guidelines substantively defendant sentence bears the is burden to reasonable, rebut the and presumption the by demonstrating 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) (citation omitted). Our review of sentence was reasonable. Turrentine s Guidelines the record reveals that Turrentine s The district court properly calculated range and sentenced range and the applicable statutory range. him within that The court provided a lengthy explanation of the basis for its sentence, carefully grounded in the § 3553(a) factors. Further, Turrentine has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. We therefore discern no See Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 379. abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Turrentine s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Turrentine, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 3 further filed, review. but If counsel Turrentine believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be 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 Turrentine. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4