UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Lee Burdette, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a 

plea agreement, to one count of transportation of child 

pornography in interstate and foreign commerce by 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 explain the sentence, as required by 18 U.S.C.A. 

§ 3553(c) (West Supp. 2011). This court reviews a sentence 

under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this 

review requires us to “ensure that the district court committed 

no significant procedural error,” such as incorrectly 

calculating the Guidelines range or “failing to adequately 

explain the chosen sentence.” Id. The court then considers the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into 

account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. 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 
3

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.” Rita v. 

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Where the defendant 

“presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different 

sentence, however, the judge will normally go further and 

explain why he has rejected those arguments.” 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. Although the district 
4

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. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED