US v. Dellonte Seburn, No. 14-4101 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4101 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DELLONTE RASHAUN SEBURN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00005-D-1) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit September 25, 2014 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan D. Campbell, Hamilton, Massachusetts, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a plea agreement, Dellonte Rashaun Seburn pled guilty to a charge of bank robbery. The district court sentenced him to 132 months imprisonment. Seburn s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), meritorious upward stating issues that, for departure in counsel s appeal, sentence is but view, there questioning reasonable and are no whether the whether the sentencing court adequately considered Seburn s argument for a reduced sentence based on his medical condition. Seburn filed a pro se supplemental brief, also arguing that the court failed to adequately consider his medical condition. Concluding that the district court did not err, we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, abuse of discretion standard of review. 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). court committed no using an Gall v. United States, We must first ensure that the district significant procedural error, United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 160-61 (4th Cir. 2008), such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)] factors, selecting a sentence based on explain clearly the chosen erroneous facts, or sentence including deviation from the Guidelines range. 2 failing an to adequately explanation for any Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, we then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We discern no procedural error by the district court. or substantive sentencing Most notably, a review of Seburn s sentencing hearing establishes that the district court correctly calculated Seburn s advisory Guidelines range as fifty-seven to seventy-one months in prison. The district court imposed an upward departure sentence of 132 months based on the inadequacy of Seburn s criminal history category, in accordance with U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3(a) (2012). We discern no error in the district court s method of calculating the extent of the departure, and find that the district court adequately articulated its reasons for the departure. at 328 ( [T]he particular forth district reasons enough court to supporting satisfy must its the See Carter, 564 F.3d state in chosen appellate open court the and set sentence court that he has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority ) (internal quotation marks omitted). Seburn next contends that the court failed to adequately consider his request for a reduced sentence based on his recent mental health diagnosis. In rejecting Seburn s argument for a reduced sentence, the district court acknowledged 3 Seburn s mental health issues, but determined that, in light of the seriousness of the offense, Seburn s history and characteristics, and the need to protect the public, a 132-month sentence was appropriate. Concluding that the district court adequately considered Seburn s argument as well as the § 3553(a) factors, we find that the district court discretion in imposing Seburn s sentence. did not abuse its See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Seburn s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Seburn, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Seburn 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 Seburn. 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 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.
