US v. Jason Norman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:07-cr-00011-RLV-DCK-4 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998426138] [09-4190]

US v. Jason Norman

Doc. 0

Case: 09-4190 Document: 29

Date Filed: 09/16/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4190 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JASON WARD NORMAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00011-RLV-DCK-4) Submitted: August 2, 2010 Decided: September 16, 2010

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rauscher, Ann L. Hester, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Edward R. Ryan, Acting United States Attorney, Mark A. Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-4190 Document: 29

Date Filed: 09/16/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Jason Ward Norman pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base and The On

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack). district court sentenced him to 168 months' imprisonment.

appeal, Norman argues that the district court failed to address his arguments at sentencing of and the failed to provide as an they

individualized apply to him.

explanation We affirm.

sentencing

factors

At sentencing, Norman contested the quantity of drugs that was attributed to him in the presentence report. The court

heard testimony from the case agent and Norman and determined that the probation officer's calculation of approximately 3,859 grams of crack cocaine and 2,240 grams of powder cocaine was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. asked the court to consider all the Norman's attorney factors and

sentencing

"sentence [Norman] with leniency," considering his health, the fact that he was an addict, the level of his culpability, and his family support. The district court adopted the findings in the

presentence report. therefore 168 to

The applicable advisory guideline range was 210 months' imprisonment. The court then

referenced United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), and imposed a 168-month sentence. 2 The

Case: 09-4190 Document: 29

Date Filed: 09/16/2010

Page: 3

court further stated that it "ha[d] not identified factors in [§] 3553(a) that would mitigate the guideline range." The court

also commented, "This case illustrates the demons of drugs as well as any in that the defendant found himself helpless and nevertheless continued to participate in activities which spread drugs about to others who would therefore be in similar

circumstances to him." An appellate court reviews a sentence for

reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). consideration of both the Id.

Gall v.

This review requires and substantive

procedural

reasonableness of a sentence.

First, the court must assess

whether the district court properly calculated the guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented selected States v. by the parties, Gall, F.3d and 552 572, must sufficiently U.S. 576 at (4th explained see 2010) the

sentence. Lynn, 592

49-50; Cir. every

United ("[A]n

individualized

explanation

accompany

sentence.");

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Even if the sentence is procedurally reasonable, the court must consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,

"examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied 3 the standards set forth in

Case: 09-4190 Document: 29

Date Filed: 09/16/2010

Page: 4

§ 3553(a)."

United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216

(4th Cir. 2010). Norman argues that his sentence is procedurally

unreasonable because the district court did not consider the § 3553(a) statement preserved factors of the how and the by failed factors arguing to provide in an his individualized case. court Norman for a

applied in the

issue

district

lenient sentence. The

See Lynn, 592 F.3d at 577-78. court is not required to "robotically

district

tick through § 3553(a)'s every subsection." Johnson, district 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th on Cir.

United States v. However, the

2006). an

court

must

"place

the

record

individualized

assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it. This individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit meaningful appellate review." Carter, 564 F.3d at 330 (internal quotation marks, footnote, and citation omitted). This is true even when the district court

sentences a defendant within the applicable guidelines range. Id. An extensive explanation is not required as long as the

appellate court is satisfied "`that [the district court] has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.'" United

States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 4

Case: 09-4190 Document: 29

Date Filed: 09/16/2010

Page: 5

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)), petition for cert. filed, 78 U.S.L.W. 3764 (U.S. 2010) (No. 09-1512). The district court properly calculated Norman's

guidelines range. the dangers of

In imposing sentence, the court commented on drugs, and illustrated those dangers by

referencing Norman's particular case.

We need not determine

whether this constitutes an adequate explanation under Carter and Supreme Court law. the Rather, because the district for court

explicitly mitigation

considered of the

§ 3553(a) and

factors the

potential court

sentence,

because

district

sentenced Norman to the lowest point in the applicable guideline range, we conclude that any error was harmless. See Lynn, 592

F.3d at 582; see also Rita, 551 U.S. at 359 ("Where . . . the record makes clear that the sentencing judge considered the

evidence and arguments, we do not believe the law requires the judge to write more extensively."); United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 838 (4th Cir. 2010) (procedural error is harmless if it "did on not the . of . have a substantial and we the and injurious with . effect . . or

influence

result . [the

can[]

say

fair

assurance[] consideration

that

district

court's would

explicit not have

defendant's]

arguments

affected the sentence imposed"). Having procedural error, determined the court that next 5 there is no the reversible substantive

considers

Case: 09-4190 Document: 29

Date Filed: 09/16/2010

Page: 6

reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Because Norman's

sentence is within the appropriate guidelines range, we presume on appeal that it is substantively reasonable. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). United States v.

The presumption may be

rebutted by a showing "that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) 375, factors." (4th Cir. not the United 2006) States v.

Montes-Pineda, quotation

445

F.3d

379

(internal that court in

marks

omitted). we

Norman hold

has that or

rebutted district

presumption. committed no

Accordingly, significant

procedural

substantive

error

sentencing Norman. sentence. legal before

Accordingly, we affirm Norman's 168-month

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

contentions the court

would

process. AFFIRMED

6