US v. Kenneth Hunter
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH RAY HUNTER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:05-cr-00049-REM-1)
January 26, 2009
March 30, 2009
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew A. Victor, VICTOR, VICTOR & HELGOE, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Stephen D. Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Kenneth Ray Hunter pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement of to one count 500 of aiding of and abetting the in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006), and was sentenced arguing affirm. We applying States, an 128 a review abuse S. Ct. a of criminal discretion 594-97 court sentence for reasonableness, Gall When v. United a to 210 months is in prison. Hunter timely no appealed, error, we
guidelines range, determine whether a sentence within that range serves the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), and explain its reasons for selecting a sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir 2007). we may presume a sentence within the United States v.
On appellate review, properly calculated
guidelines range is reasonable.
Id.; see Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338, __, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding appellate presumption of reasonableness for a within-guidelines sentence). Hunter his sentence, challenges asserting his the substantive under the reasonableness totality of of the In
that, was 2
support of this argument, he argues that the district court gave too little weight to § 3553(a) considerations such as his
rehabilitation, support from his family and community, and his health, and placed undue weight on deterrence and the need to protect the public. However, a review of the sentencing
transcript and the presentence report ("PSR") reveals no error in sentencing. While a district court must explain its sentence, it need not robotically tick through § 3553(a)'s every subsection. United 2006). States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir.
Here, the court explained that Hunter had a "lengthy and
troubling criminal history" that covered twenty pages in the PSR and spanned twenty years. offense of collecting a The court also found that the instant drug debt had potential for serious
Moreover, the court explained that previous periods
of incarceration had not deterred Hunter from criminal conduct. The court found that based upon the seriousness of the crime and the need to protect the public and deter further criminal
conduct, a variance from the guidelines range was not warranted. The district court properly calculated the guidelines range, provided rebut considered ample the appropriate for its his § 3553(a) factors, does and not
guidelines sentence is reasonable. 3
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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?