US v. Chad Steven Humphrie

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00087-MR-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998729997]. [11-4107]

Appeal: 11-4107

Document: 42

Date Filed: 11/28/2011

Page: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4107
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHAD STEVEN HUMPHRIES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00087-MR-1)
Submitted:

November 16, 2011

Decided:

November 28, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4107

Document: 42

Date Filed: 11/28/2011

Page: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
In December 2009, Chad Steven Humphries pled guilty to
conspiracy

to

commit

mail

fraud,

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§ 1349 (2006), six counts of mail fraud and aiding and abetting,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 2 (2006), and six counts of
wire fraud and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1343, 2 (2006).

At sentencing, the district court granted

the Government’s motion for an upward variance and sentenced
Humphries to 180 months of imprisonment.

Humphries now appeals

the criminal judgment.
Counsel

has

filed

a

brief

pursuant

to

Anders

v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal.

Despite being advised of his

right to do so, Humphries has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief.

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether trial

counsel provided ineffective assistance at sentencing.
of

ineffective

assistance

of

counsel

are

not

Claims

cognizable

on

direct appeal unless the record conclusively establishes that
counsel

provided

ineffective

assistance.

Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006).

United

States

v.

We conclude that

any ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not ripe for
review at this time as there is no evidence in the record that
trial counsel was ineffective.
2

Appeal: 11-4107

Document: 42

Date Filed: 11/28/2011

Page: 3 of 6

In conducting our Anders review, we have considered
the

reasonableness

of

the

district

court’s

variance.

upward

This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district court for
reasonableness,
standard.
This

applying

a

deferential

abuse-of-discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007).

court

procedural

first
error,”

examines

the

including

sentence

“significant

calculation

improper

for

of

the

Guidelines range, insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)

(2006)

sentence

imposed.

factors,

and

inadequate

Gall,

552

U.S.

at

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
ensure

that

the

district

court

explanation

51;

United

of

States

the
v.

This court also must

analyzed

any

nonfrivolous

arguments presented by the parties, sufficiently explained its
reasons

for

rejecting

those

arguments,

and

made

individualized assessment based on the facts presented.”

“an
Gall,

552 U.S. at 49-50; Carter, 564 F.3d at 328.

Because Humphries

argued

one

for

a

sentence

different

from

the

imposed,

he

properly preserved a claim of procedural sentencing error, and


The Government has not sought to enforce the appeal waiver
in this case, which would have precluded review of Humphries’
sentence, and we will not raise the issue sua sponte.
See
United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005)
(citing United States v. Brock, 211 F.3d 88, 90 n.1 (4th Cir.
2000)); see also United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271
(4th Cir. 2007) (stating that, if Anders brief is filed in case
with appeal waiver, Government’s failure to respond “allow[s]
this court to perform the required Anders review”).

3

Appeal: 11-4107

Document: 42

Date Filed: 11/28/2011

Page: 4 of 6

we will reverse an abuse of discretion unless we conclude the
error was harmless.

See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572,

576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010).
If

this

court

finds

a

sentence

procedurally

reasonable, it also must examine the substantive reasonableness
of the sentence under the totality of the circumstances.
552 U.S. at 51; see Carter, 564 F.3d at 328.

Gall,

In the case of an

above-Guidelines sentence, a reasonableness analysis will take
into account “whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both
with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with
respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing
range.”

United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118,

123 (4th Cir. 2007).

However, this consideration also “must

give due deference to the district court’s decision that the
§ 3553(a)

factors,

variance.”

on

a

whole,

justify

the

extent

of

the

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

It is apparent from the record that the district court
considered both parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for
its variance from the Guidelines range.

The district court

properly considered the § 3553(a) factors and explained that it
was

varying

Guidelines
seriousness

from
sentence
of

the

Guidelines

would

Humphries’

not

range

adequately

offense

and

because
account

criminal

a

withinfor

the

history,

nor

provide sufficient deterrence or just punishment for his crime.
4

Appeal: 11-4107

Document: 42

Date Filed: 11/28/2011

Page: 5 of 6

The court also specifically addressed defense counsel’s argument
for a within-Guidelines sentence and explained why it was not
adopting counsel’s request.
satisfied

that

the

assessment

in

this

district
case

Under the circumstances, we are
court

and

rendered

adequately

an

individualized

explained

the

upward

variance and conclude that the sentence is procedurally sound.
Additionally, we cannot conclude that the district court abused
its discretion in imposing a thirty-month upward variance, and
we hold that the sentence is substantively reasonable in light
of the facts of this case and the district court’s reasoned
analysis of the relevant § 3553(a) factors.
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed
the record, including the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing,

and

therefore

find

affirm

no

the

meritorious

district

issues

court’s

for

appeal.

We

This

court

judgment.

requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further
filed,

review.
but

If

counsel

the

client

believes

requests

that

such

that
a

a

petition

petition

would

be
be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on the client.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

5

Appeal: 11-4107

Document: 42

Date Filed: 11/28/2011

Page: 6 of 6

expressed in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

6