Filed: Mar. 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4372 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RUBEN TODD-MURGAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00127-WO-1) Submitted: February 4, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Carlyle Sher
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4372 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RUBEN TODD-MURGAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00127-WO-1) Submitted: February 4, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Carlyle Sherr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4372
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RUBEN TODD-MURGAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00127-WO-1)
Submitted: February 4, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Carlyle Sherrill, III, SHERRILL & CAMERON, PLLC, Salisbury,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ruben Todd-Murgas pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to one count of possession with intent to distribute
500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing cocaine
hydrochloride in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)
(2006). The district court found that this conviction
constituted a violation of the terms of his supervised release
on two 1998 drug-related convictions in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York. The court sentenced
Todd-Murgas to a term of imprisonment of 177 months on the
cocaine distribution conviction plus two concurrent terms of
imprisonment of twenty-four months for the supervised release
violation to run consecutively to the 177-month term.
On appeal, Todd-Murgas’s counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which
he states that he finds no meritorious issues for appeal.
Counsel does call two issues to our attention: (1) whether the
district court erred in attributing 480 kilograms of cocaine to
Todd-Murgas; and (2) whether the district court erred by
imposing a consecutive sentence for the supervised release
violation. Todd-Murgas was advised of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief but has not filed a brief. The Government
chose not to file a response.
2
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Todd-Murgas is not entitled to relief. This court reviews a
sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step
in this review requires the court to inspect for procedural
reasonableness by ensuring that the district court committed no
significant procedural errors. See United States v. Boulware,
604 F.3d 832, 837-38 (4th Cir. 2010). A reviewing court then
considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
We review a district court’s calculation of the
quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant for sentencing
purposes for clear error. United States v. Carter, 300 F.3d
415, 425 (4th Cir. 2002). “A district court’s approximation of
the amount of drugs is not clearly erroneous if supported by
competent evidence in the record.” United States v. Randall,
171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing United States v.
Uwaeme,
975 F.2d 1016, 1019 (4th Cir. 1992)). “When objecting
to drug quantities as set forth in the Presentence Report, the
defendant has an affirmative duty to show that the information
contained in the report is inaccurate or unreliable.”
Carter,
300 F.3d at 425 (citing United States v. Terry,
916 F.2d 157,
3
162 (4th Cir. 1990)). “A district court’s finding of quantity
is not erroneous if it is based on evidence possessing
sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable
accuracy.” Uwaeme, 975 F.2d at 1021. Todd-Murgas has failed to
undermine the reliability of his own statement regarding the
drug weights he distributed. We accordingly decline to conclude
that the district court’s finding was clearly erroneous. Nor
has Todd-Murgas demonstrated that the district court abused its
discretion in electing to impose a consecutive term of
imprisonment for his supervised release violation.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Todd-Murgas’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Todd-Murgas, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Todd-Murgas 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 representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Todd-Murgas.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
4
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5
