USCA4 Appeal: 23-4099 Doc: 36 Filed: 08/28/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4099

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SERGIO SHAW SUMMERVILLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:22-cr-00096-BO-2)

Submitted: August 16, 2024 Decided: August 28, 2024

Before WYNN, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Rudolph A. Ashton, III, DUNN PITTMAN SKINNER & ASHTON, PLLC, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Julie A. Childress, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4099 Doc: 36 Filed: 08/28/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Sergio Shaw Summerville pled guilty to four counts of distributing crack cocaine,

in violation of

(a)(1). The district court sentenced Summerville to 48

months’ imprisonment, and he now appeals. On appeal, Summerville challenges his

sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Finding no reversible error, we

affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a “deferential abuse-of-

discretion standard.” Gall v. United States,

(2007). In doing so, we first

consider whether the sentencing court committed “significant procedural error,” including

improperly calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to sufficiently consider the

(a) factors, and failing to adequately explain the sentence imposed.

; see United States v. Nance,

(4th Cir. 2020).

If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, we then consider its substantive

reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances. Nance,

. The

sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the

purposes” of sentencing.

(a). We presume on appeal that a within-

Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, and the defendant bears the burden to

“rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured

against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes–Pineda,

(4th

Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Upon review, we find Summerville’s within-Guidelines sentence to be both

procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court expressly considered the

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4099 Doc: 36 Filed: 08/28/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

§ 3553(a) factors and adequately explained its rejection of Summerville’s request for a

downward variance and its reasons for imposing the 48-month sentence. Moreover,

Summerville has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness applied to his sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

3