US v. William Burdette, Jr., No. 11-4044 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4044 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. WILLIAM LEE BURDETTE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00318-WDQ-1) Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: December 16, 2011 Before KING, KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew R. Szekely, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Kristi N. O Malley, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Lee Burdette, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, pornography in to one interstate count of and transportation foreign commerce of by child means of computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2252A(a)(1), 2256 (West 2000 & Supp. 2011). The district court sentenced Burdette to 135 months in prison. Burdette appeals, and we affirm. On appeal, Burdette claims that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately by § 3553(c) under a explain (West the Supp. deferential sentence, 2011). as required This court abuse-of-discretion United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). reviews standard. 18 U.S.C.A. a sentence Gall v. The first step in this review requires us to ensure that the district court committed no significant calculating the procedural error, Guidelines range Id. explain the chosen sentence. substantive reasonableness or of such as failing to incorrectly adequately The court then considers the the sentence, account the totality of the circumstances. tak[ing] Id. into This court presumes on appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). In explaining a sentence, the sentencing judge should articulate enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has 2 considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority, but when the judge decides to sentence within the Guidelines range, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). presents sentence, nonfrivolous however, the reasons judge for will Rita v. Where the defendant imposing normally explain why he has rejected those arguments. a go different further and Id. at 357; see United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). While a district court must consider the statutory factors and explain its sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the record, particularly when the district court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). The record discloses that here, the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, heard argument from both parties, and announced its decision to sentence Burdette within the Guidelines range. Its explanation for this sentence was not lengthy, but it made clear the court s disagreement with defense counsel s argument as to the seriousness of the offense and the importance of consistency in sentencing. The court stated that a Guidelines sentence fit Burdette s circumstances and provided the desired uniformity. 3 Although the district court did not touch on every point raised by defense counsel, its explanation was sufficient to show its consideration of Burdette s arguments and the reasoned basis for its decision. Rita, 551 U.S. at 356. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
