US v. Elden Hannah
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ELDEN PIERRE HANNAH, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:05-cr-00021-TLW-1)
February 25, 2010
March 17, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sol Z. Rosen, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Elden Pierre Hannah pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to trafficking in counterfeit goods, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320(a) (West 2006 & Supp. 2009), and conspiring to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base and five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). As part of his plea agreement, Hannah The district
also agreed to an extensive forfeiture provision.
court departed downward from Hannah's advisory Guidelines range and sentenced him to 168 months' imprisonment. Hannah noted his
appeal and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). court. We district accepting have reviewed the record with and and conclude R. Crim. that P. 11 the in his We affirm the judgment of the district
guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.
See United States v. The plea was
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). also supported by an adequate factual basis.
Additionally, Hannah's sentence was reasonable.
court reviews a sentence imposed by a district court under a
Although Hannah was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so.
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th court Cir. must 2008). "first In reviewing that a sentence, district the court
committed no significant procedural error," such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately If there
explain the chosen sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
are no procedural errors, the appellate court then considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id.
"When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented" and "state in open court the particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence." (4th Cir. 2009) This United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (internal requires quotation district marks court and to citations provide a
sufficient explanation of the sentence to satisfy this court that the district court has a reasoned basis for its decision and has considered the parties' arguments. Id. This court
presumes a sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. (4th Cir. 2007). Hannah's substantively sentence was The 3 both district procedurally court and United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193
explained Hannah's sentence.
Additionally, Hannah received a
substantial downward departure based on his cooperation, and the materials submitted on appeal do not rebut the presumption of reasonableness this court affords his within Guidelines sentence on appeal. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Hannah's conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Hannah, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hannah 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 Hannah. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in the the materials decisional
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?