US v. Terry Headen

Filing 920090918

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4878 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY HEADEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00139-1) Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 18, 2009 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David O. Schles, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID SCHLES, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Miller Bushong, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terry Headen appeals the district court's judgment imposing concurrent sentences of 240 months' imprisonment after Headen pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2006) and conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956 (West 2006 & Supp. 2008). We find the district court did not err in imposing a four-level increase in the total offense level as to the money laundering conviction under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 3B1.1(a) (2008) for Headen's leadership role. We find that the district court appropriately considered the advisory nature of the guidelines range and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006), independently calculated a sentencing range, and imposed a reasonable sentence. 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 See Gall v. United States, (2007); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). err by declining to depart downward after Nor did the court recognizing its authority to do so. 682 (4th Cir. See United States v. Quinn, 369 F.3d 666, Accordingly, we affirm the district 2004). court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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?