US v. Rico Titus, No. 14-4012 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICO DEMORRIS TITUS, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 things, the 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 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 a officers found firearm the drug 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 the presumption unreasonable by when demonstrating measured [(2012)] factors. 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
