UNPUBLISHED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 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
4