United States v. Dellonte Seburn

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4101

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

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 Decided: September 25, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no

meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the

upward departure sentence is reasonable and 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, using an

abuse of discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We must first ensure that the district

court committed no 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 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. If

2
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 or substantive sentencing

error by the district court. 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. See Carter, 564 F.3d

at 328 (“[T]he district court must state in open court the

particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence” and “set

forth enough to satisfy the appellate 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 did not abuse its

discretion in imposing Seburn’s sentence. 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