US v. Charles Hardee

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:08-cr-01172-TLW-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998675817]. [10-5286]

Download PDF
Appeal: 10-5286 Document: 29 Date Filed: 09/13/2011 Page: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5286 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CHARLES A. HARDEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:08-cr-01172-TLW-1) Submitted: August 26, 2011 Decided: September 13, 2011 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 10-5286 Document: 29 Date Filed: 09/13/2011 Page: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Charles A. Hardee pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011), and the district Hardee to 108 months of imprisonment. court sentenced In a prior appeal, we affirmed Hardee’s conviction but vacated and remanded to allow the district court to more fully explain the reasons for the chosen sentence. On resentencing, the district court again sentenced Hardee to 108 months of imprisonment and Hardee again appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. On appeal, Hardee argues that the district court again failed to adequately explain its reasons for the sentence. We review of a sentence for discretion standard. reasonableness, applying an abuse Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). examine the sentence for “significant In so doing, we procedural error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider selecting a the [18 sentence U.S.C.] based on § 3553(a) clearly [(2006)] erroneous failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” U.S. at 51. factors, facts, or Gall, 552 Here, as Hardee requested a sentence outside the advisory Guidelines range and the district court again sentenced 2 Appeal: 10-5286 him Document: 29 within that discretion. (4th Cir. Date Filed: 09/13/2011 range, we review Page: 3 of 4 this issue for abuse of See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578-79 2010) (claim for failure to adequately explain sentence preserved if defendant argues for a sentence other than that imposed). A district court must conduct an “individualized assessment” of the particular facts of every sentence, whether the court imposes a Guidelines range. (4th Cir. 2009). sentence above, below, or within the United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 In addition, “[w]here [the parties] present[] nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a . . . sentence [outside the advisory Guidelines range,] . . . a district judge should address the party’s arguments and explain why he has rejected those arguments.” Id. citation omitted). at 328 (internal quotation marks and We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court complied with these obligations. The court thoroughly explained its reasons for imposing a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, for concluding that a sentence at the high end of that range was appropriate, and for rejecting each of Hardee’s sentencing arguments. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials Appeal: 10-5286 Document: 29 Date Filed: 09/13/2011 Page: 4 of 4 before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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?