US v. Christopher Ledbetter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:10-cr-00134-HMH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998565182].. [10-4817]

Case: 10-4817

Document: 25

Date Filed: 04/11/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4817

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER DARRELL LEDBETTER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:10-cr-00134-HMH-1)

Submitted:

February 18, 2011

Decided:

April 11, 2011

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 10-4817

Document: 25

Date Filed: 04/11/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM:
Appellant Christopher Darrell Ledbetter challenges the
procedural
district

reasonableness
court

following

of
his

the

sentence

guilty

plea

imposed
to

one

by

the

count

of

possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1),

924(a)(2)

and

924(e)

(2006).

For

the

reasons

stated below, we affirm his sentence.
This
applying
States,

an
552

court

abuse
U.S.

reviews

of
38,

a

sentence

for

discretion

standard.

51

see

(2007);

Gall

also

Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010).

reasonableness,

United

v.

United

States

v.

Our review requires

appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness

of

a

sentence.

Gall,

552

U.S.

at

51.

In

determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the
district
Guidelines

court

properly

range,

calculated

considered

the

18

the

defendant’s

U.S.C.

advisory

§ 3553(a)

(2006)

factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence.

Id.

Regardless of whether the district court imposes an
above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on
the record an individualized assessment based on the particular
facts of the case before it.”

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
This explanation “need not be elaborate or lengthy,” id. at 330,
2

Case: 10-4817

Document: 25

Date Filed: 04/11/2011

Page: 3

and the district court’s explanation will withstand appellate
scrutiny as long this court has a basis from which to determine
“that [the district court] has considered the parties’ arguments
and

has

a

reasoned

basis

decisionmaking authority.”

for

exercising

[its]

own

legal

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,

356 (2007).
At
district

his

court

sentencing
to

impose

hearing,
his

Ledbetter

120-month

concurrently to a pending state sentence.

asked

sentence

to

the
run

The district court

then imposed the sentence to be served “consecutively to any
sentence

the

comment.

On appeal, Ledbetter only questions the sufficiency of

the

district

defendant

court’s

is

presently

explanation

serving”

for

without

imposing

the

further

sentence

consecutively.
Assuming, without deciding, that the district court’s
explanation of the sentence was inadequate, we conclude that any
error was harmless.

See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220,

268 (2005) (noting that appellate courts may apply the plain
error

and

harmless

error

doctrines

in

determining

whether

resentencing is required); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (stating that
an appellate court may disregard any error that does not affect
substantial rights).

A district court may impose a consecutive

sentence when “multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed on a
defendant at the same time” or when the “defendant . . . is
3

Case: 10-4817

Document: 25

Date Filed: 04/11/2011

Page: 4

already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment . . . .”
18 U.S.C. § 3584 (2006).

Here, the district court imposed a

sentence

any

“consecutive

serving.”

The

record

to
in

sentence

this

case,

[Ledbetter]
however,

is

now

establishes

Ledbetter was not then serving a sentence as of the date the
district court imposed judgment; instead, he was only being held
in

state

custody

“for

some

pending

charges.”

(J.A.

39).

Because those charges had not yet been adjudicated, Ledbetter
was not yet serving an undischarged term of imprisonment.

Thus,

the district court’s pronouncement of a consecutive sentence was
of no effect and did not infringe Ledbetter’s rights.

See 18

U.S.C. § 3584.
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

4