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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?