UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SIRRICO FITZGERALD BURNSIDE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(6:12-cr-00220-TMC-1)

Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: July 15, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sirrico Fitzgerald Burnside pled guilty, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute 

heroin, possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine, 

and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2006) and 18 

U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006). Based on a total offense level of 31 

and a criminal history category of VI, Burnside’s advisory 

Guidelines range was 188 to 235 months imprisonment. The 

district court imposed a sentence of 188 months. Burnside 

appeals.

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no 

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether

Burnside’s 188-month sentence is reasonable. Although advised 

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Burnside has 

not done so. 

We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse 

of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). This review requires consideration of both the 

procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.; 

see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). 

In determining the procedural reasonableness of a sentence, this 

court considers whether the district court properly calculated 
3

the defendant’s Guidelines range, treated the Sentencing 

Guidelines as advisory, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, 

and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 

U.S. at 51. A sentence imposed within the properly calculated 

Guidelines range is presumed reasonable by this court. United 

States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010), 

cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 3078 (2011). 

We find that the sentence imposed by the district 

court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The 

district court properly calculated Burnside’s sentencing range 

under the advisory Guidelines, considered the relevant § 3553(a) 

factors, and imposed a sentence within the applicable sentencing 

range. Burnside has not overcome the rebuttable presumption of 

reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. See

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Burnside’s conviction and sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Burnside, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Burnside 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 
4

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Burnside.

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