US v. Kenneth Hinson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:07-cr-00485-TLW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998647325].. [10-4713]
Appeal: 10-4713
Document: 40
Date Filed: 08/04/2011
Page: 1 of 7
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4713
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH GLENN HINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-00485-TLW-1)
Submitted:
July 27, 2011
Decided:
August 4, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael
Chesser,
Aiken,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Robert F. Daley,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 10-4713
Document: 40
Date Filed: 08/04/2011
Page: 2 of 7
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth
Glenn
Hinson
was
convicted
of
unlawful
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced to a
term of 115 months’ imprisonment. *
Hinson appeals his sentence,
arguing that the court erred in finding that he possessed the
firearm
in
connection
Guidelines
Manual
discretion
varying
in
with
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)
departing
upward
another
pursuant
felony,
(2009),
upward
under
to
U.S.C.
18
USSG
U.S.
and
Sentencing
abused
§ 4A1.3,
§ 3553(a)
its
p.s.
and
(2006).
We
affirm.
A
sentence
is
reviewed
abuse of discretion standard.
38, 51 (2007).
for
reasonableness
under
an
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence.
Id.;
see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010).
The court must first ensure that the district court did not
commit any “significant procedural error,” such as failing to
properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range, failing to
consider
the
18
U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a)
*
(West
2000
&
Supp.
2006)
The district court initially sentenced Hinson as an armed
career criminal to 300 months imprisonment.
18 U.S.C.A.
§ 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011). In his first appeal, we held
that he lacked the necessary predicate convictions for an armed
career criminal sentence and remanded the case for resentencing.
United States v. Hinson, 363 F. App’x 998 (4th Cir. 2010).
2
Appeal: 10-4713
Document: 40
Date Filed: 08/04/2011
Page: 3 of 7
factors, or failing to explain the sentence adequately.
552
U.S.
at
51.
If
the
sentence
is
free
of
Gall,
significant
procedural error, the appellate court reviews the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.
Section 2K2.1(b)(6)
Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575.
provides
for
a
four-level
enhancement “[i]f the defendant used or possessed any firearm or
ammunition in connection with another felony offense.”
§ 2K2.1(b)(6).
USSG
“[T]he purpose of Section 2K2.1(b)(6) [is] to
punish more severely a defendant who commits a separate felony
offense that is rendered more dangerous by the presence of a
United States v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160, 164 (4th Cir.
firearm.”
2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“‘Another felony offense,’ for purposes of subsection
(b)(6),
means
any
federal,
punishable
by
regardless
of
whether
or
for
term
imprisonment
state,
conviction obtained.”
a
a
criminal
local
offense[]
exceeding
charge
was
USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(C).
one
brought,
. . .
year,
or
a
A firearm is
used or possessed “in connection with” another felony offense if
it
“facilitated,
offense.
or
had
the
potential
of
facilitating,”
the
Id. cmt. n.14(A); see Jenkins, 566 F.3d at 162-63.
“[I]n the case of a drug trafficking offense in which a firearm
is found in close proximity to drugs, . . . application of [the
four-level enhancement] is warranted because the presence of the
firearm has the potential of facilitating another felony offense
3
Appeal: 10-4713
Document: 40
. . . .”
Date Filed: 08/04/2011
Page: 4 of 7
USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(B); see Jenkins, 566 F.3d at
163.
The district court determined that the enhancement was
warranted because Hinson had testified under oath at his state
trial on other charges that he was a drug dealer and that he
fled his home because he thought law enforcement officers knew
about four pounds of marijuana he had stored in his basement.
In addition, the district court considered Hinson’s post-arrest
statement to law enforcement officers that he always had a gun
with him.
we
Based on the uncontested evidence before the court,
conclude
that
the
district
court
did
not
clearly
err
in
finding that Hinson was selling marijuana and that the firearm
he
possessed
had
the
potential
to
facilitate
that
activity.
Therefore, the district court properly applied the four-level
enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6).
Next,
we
review
the
district
court’s
departure
by
considering “whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both
with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with
respect
range.”
123
to
the
extent
of
the
divergence
from
the
sentencing
United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118,
(4th Cir. 2007).
Under
USSG
§ 4A1.3(a)(1),
the
district
court may upwardly depart from the Guidelines sentence if the
court determines that “the defendant’s criminal history category
substantially
under-represents
4
the
seriousness
of
the
Appeal: 10-4713
Document: 40
defendant’s
Date Filed: 08/04/2011
criminal
history
or
Page: 5 of 7
the
likelihood
defendant will commit other crimes[.]”
prior
sentences
category.
not
used
in
that
the
The court may consider
computing
the
criminal
history
See USSG § 4A1.3(a)(2)(A).
The district court considered two sentences that were
too old to be counted:
one for aggravated assault and battery;
and one for cocaine trafficking.
Hinson points out that a prior
sentence not counted in the defendant’s criminal history because
it is too old, i.e., outside the applicable time period set out
in § 4A1.2, may be the basis for a departure only if the old
conviction involved similar or serious dissimilar conduct.
USSG § 4A1.2 cmt. n.8.
See
The district court specifically declined
to find that the prior criminal conduct underlying the uncounted
sentences was similar to Hinson’s § 922(g)(1) conviction, but
found that the offenses were “very serious.”
Hinson
assault
and
sufficiently
argues
battery
serious
that
and
to
the
prior
cocaine
warrant
a
offenses,
aggravated
trafficking,
departure
were
not
because
the
aggravated assault occurred at least twenty years before the
instant
offense
and
the
cocaine
trafficking
only possession of eleven grams of cocaine.
offense
involved
However, the age of
the assault and battery does not lessen its seriousness; the
presentence report states that Hinson struck another man with a
car
jack.
Moreover,
Hinson
5
appears
to
understate
the
Appeal: 10-4713
Document: 40
Date Filed: 08/04/2011
Page: 6 of 7
seriousness of his cocaine trafficking offense.
this
appeal
does
not
disclose
the
exact
The record in
quantity
of
cocaine
involved in Hinson’s cocaine trafficking offense but, from the
available information, it appears that it was more than eleven
grams.
We
conclude
that
the
district
court
reasonably
determined that both of Hinson’s uncounted sentences were for
serious criminal conduct and that criminal history category II
significantly
risk
of
under-represented
recidivism.
reasonable.
his
the
Thus,
criminal
history
decision
his
depart
to
and
was
Moreover, in departing, the district court followed
the incremental approach set out in § 4A1.3(a)(4)(A), and the
extent of the departure was reasonable.
After departing upward, the district court announced
that it would also vary upward by two levels.
that
the
variance
was
both
procedurally
Hinson maintains
and
substantively
unreasonable because, in his view, the court relied again on the
uncounted sentences which were the basis for the departure to
justify
a
further
mischaracterizes
court
noted
the
Hinson’s
increase
court’s
in
reasons
propensity
to
his
for
sentence.
the
commit
variance.
new
crimes
Hinson
The
after
incarceration, and to commit violent crimes, first against an
adult, then against a child.
The court also reviewed the §
3553(a) factors in light of the undisputed record and stated
that an upward variance was necessary to reflect the seriousness
6
Appeal: 10-4713
Document: 40
Date Filed: 08/04/2011
Page: 7 of 7
of the instant offense, promote respect for the law, provide
adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and protect the public
from further crimes of the defendant.
Alternatively, the court
found that the testimony of the four witnesses who testified at
sentencing that Hinson had sexually abused them when they were
children had sufficient indicators of reliability to justify a
two-level variance.
Thus, the court’s first ground for a variance was not
simply the fact of Hinson’s prior uncounted offenses, but his
failure to be deterred by prior incarcerations and the nature of
his offenses.
The court’s second ground was credible evidence
of a number of sexual crimes Hinson had committed, only one of
which he had been convicted and punished for.
We are satisfied
that the court’s variance was reasonable on either ground and
the
resulting
sentence
was
procedurally
and
substantively
reasonable.
We
district
facts
court.
and
materials
therefore
legal
before
We
affirm
dispense
the
with
sentence
oral
argument
contentions
are
adequately
the
and
argument
court
imposed
by
the
because
the
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
7
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?