UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-4249

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BOBBY ROGER BURCH, a/k/a Rob Patterson, a/k/a Rob Bob,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cr-00060-MR-WCM-1)

Submitted: November 30, 2021 Decided: August 16, 2022

Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: D. Baker McIntyre III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy 

Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4249 Doc: 42 Filed: 08/16/2022 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Roger Burch pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy 

to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and the district court sentenced him to 262 months’ 

imprisonment. On appeal, Burch’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that no meritorious grounds exist for appeal but broadly 

questioning whether Burch’s sentence is reasonable and whether trial counsel was 

ineffective. The Government declined to file a response brief. In a pro se supplemental 

brief, Burch argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantive unreasonable. We 

affirm.

We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). To pass muster under this review, 

the sentence must be both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Id. at 51. In 

determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly 

calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an 

opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If a sentence is free 

of “significant procedural error,” then this court reviews it for substantive reasonableness, 

“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any sentence that is 

within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” 

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). “Such a presumption can 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4249 Doc: 42 Filed: 08/16/2022 Pg: 2 of 4
3

only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. 

We discern no procedural error in Burch’s sentence. The district court properly 

calculated the advisory Guidelines range, responded to the parties’ nonfrivolous 

arguments, and applied the § 3553(a) factors. The district court also provided an 

explanation for the chosen sentence.1

 Furthermore, we conclude that the sentence is 

substantively reasonable because Burch’s sentence fell within the Guidelines range and 

nothing in the record rebuts the presumption of reasonableness accorded to it. See 

Louthian, 756 F.3d at 306. 

Turning to the issue of ineffective assistance, “[i]t is well settled that a claim of 

ineffective assistance should be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district court 

rather than on direct appeal, unless the record conclusively shows ineffective assistance.”2

 

United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020). In his brief, Anders counsel 

asserts that Burch stated he did not have adequate time to meet with his trial counsel and 

that trial counsel had assured Burch he would receive a 10-year imprisonment term. 

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that ineffective assistance of counsel does not 

1 Burch’s appeal was placed in abeyance for our decision in United States v. Oliver, 

No. 20-4500, 2022 WL 1223716 (4th Cir. Apr. 26, 2022). Unlike the defendant in Oliver, 

however, Burch did not object to the proposed terms of supervised release before the

district court, and we conclude that the district court’s explanation for imposing the 

discretionary conditions of supervised release in this case was sufficient.

2 In his pro se brief, Burch states that he primarily seeks to preserve his claims of 

ineffective assistance for collateral review proceedings.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4249 Doc: 42 Filed: 08/16/2022 Pg: 3 of 4
4

conclusively appear on the present record, so we decline to consider this claim on direct 

appeal.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have 

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This Court requires that counsel inform Burch, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Burch requests that counsel file 

such a petition, 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 counsel served a copy thereof on Burch. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4249 Doc: 42 Filed: 08/16/2022 Pg: 4 of 4