US v. Tyrone Hinton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00110-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998869271].. [11-5108]

Appeal: 11-5108

Doc: 28

Filed: 06/06/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5108

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TYRONE ERNELL HINTON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00110-FL-1)

Submitted:

May 8, 2012

Decided:

June 6, 2012

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-5108

Doc: 28

Filed: 06/06/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Tyrone

Ernell

Hinton

pled

guilty,

without

a

plea

agreement, to one count of bank robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006).

The district court sentenced Hinton to

188 months in prison, the top of the advisory Guidelines range.
In

reaching

this

sentence,

the

district

court

took

into

consideration several factors, including the need to deter such
criminal conduct, to protect the public, to promote respect for
the law, and to get Hinton mental health treatment.
timely

appeals,

asserting

that

the

district

court

Hinton
committed

plain error by basing his sentence on his need for mental health
treatment.

For the following reasons, we affirm.
As Hinton acknowledges, we review his claim for plain

error because he raises it for the first time on appeal.
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 580 (4th Cir. 2010).
plain
based

error,
on

Hinton

error,

must

that

show
was

that

the

plain,

To establish

court’s

and

that

United

sentence
affected

was
his

substantial rights.

United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288,

295 (4th Cir. 2012).

Even if Hinton makes this showing, we will

not correct the error unless “it seriously affects the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

Id.

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
At
opportunities

sentencing,
for

a

court

rehabilitation
2

or

may

discuss

treatment

a

defendant’s

programs

during

Appeal: 11-5108

Doc: 28

Filed: 06/06/2012

incarceration.
(2011).
length

Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2392

However,
of

a

Pg: 3 of 4

the

sentence

court
for

may

impose

purpose

the

not

of

defendant receive rehabilitative services.
Even

assuming

that

the

or

increase

ensuring

that

the
the

Id. at 2393.

district

court

improperly

considered Hinton’s need for psychological treatment as a basis
for his sentence, we find that Hinton has not shown that the
error affected his substantial rights.
Generally,

for

an

error

to

affect

a

defendant’s

substantial rights it must be prejudicial, meaning “there must
be a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome
. . . .”

United States v. Marcus, 130 S. Ct. 2159, 2164 (2010).

In the sentencing context, an error affects substantial rights
only if the defendant can show that the sentence imposed was
longer

than

error.

the

sentence

he

would

have

received

without

the

United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 548 (4th Cir.

2005); see also United States v. Angle, 254 F.3d 514, 518 (4th
Cir. 2001) (en banc) (explaining that sentencing error affects
substantial rights if the actual sentence is “longer than that
to which [the defendant] would otherwise be subject”); see also
United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 272 (4th Cir. 2010)
(holding

defendant

failed

to

show

lack

of

a

more

detailed

explanation had a prejudicial impact on the sentence imposed).

3

Appeal: 11-5108

Doc: 28

Filed: 06/06/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

Here, the district court provided several legitimate
grounds
range,

for
and

sentencing
Hinton

Hinton

fails

to

at

show

the

top

that

of

there

the
is

a

Guidelines
reasonable

probability that the court would have imposed a lower sentence
had

it

not

treatment.
dispense

improperly

considered

Accordingly,
with

oral

we

argument

his

affirm

need

for

because

Hinton’s
the

psychological

sentence.

facts

and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4