US v. Diane Conway Hutchison

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00004-MR-DLH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999234860].. [13-4250]

Appeal: 13-4250

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/06/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4250

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DIANE CONWAY HUTCHISON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00004-MR-DLH-1)

Submitted:

October 23, 2013

Decided:

November 6, 2013

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henderson Hill, Executive Director, Joshua B. Carpenter, FEDERAL
DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Melissa L. Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4250

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/06/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Diane

Conway

Hutchison

appeals

the

twenty-one

month

sentence imposed after she pled guilty to one count of wire
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2006).

The district

court imposed this sentence after departing upward one criminal
history category pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(USSG) § 4A1.3 (2012), based on its conclusion that Hutchison’s
criminal

history

category

criminal conduct.

of

I

underrepresented

her

prior

Hutchison argues on appeal that the district

court procedurally erred in failing to address her arguments
against the departure and substantively erred in relying on an
inaccurate

factual

conclude

that

premise

to

Hutchison’s

support

claims

the

We

meritorious,

are

departure.

and

accordingly vacate her sentence and remand for resentencing.
We review a sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard.
United

States,

applies

552

whether

U.S.

the

38,

51

sentence

(2007).

is

The

“inside,

same

just

Gall v.
standard

outside,

or

significantly outside the Guidelines range.”

United States v.

Rivera-Santana,

Cir.)

668

F.3d

95,

100-01

(4th

(internal

citation and quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct.
274

(2012).

consider

In

whether

defendant’s

determining
the

advisory

procedural

district

court

Guidelines
2

reasonableness,

properly

range,

gave

calculated
the

parties

we
the
an

Appeal: 13-4250

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/06/2013

Pg: 3 of 5

opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, selected a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explained the selected
sentence.

Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51.

In reviewing any sentence

outside the Guidelines range, the appellate court must give due
deference

to

the

sentencing

court’s

decision

because

it

has

“flexibility in fashioning a sentence outside of the Guidelines
range,” and need only “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate
court that it has considered the parties’ arguments and has a
reasoned basis” for its decision.

United States v. Diosdado-

Star, 630 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Gall, 552 U.S.
at 56); see also United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th
Cir.

2009)

(sentencing

court

“must

make

an

individualized

assessment based on the facts presented”) (citation and emphasis
omitted).
Hutchison

first

contends

that

the

district

court

failed to comply with the mandate of Gall and United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 581 (4th Cir. 2010), that the sentencing
court

address

the

defendant’s

non-frivolous

sentence within the Guidelines range.

arguments

for

a

The Government argues

that the sentence is procedurally reasonable and that any error
by

the

district

recognized

that

determined

in

court

was

Hutchison’s
category

I

harmless.

The

criminal

history

because
3

district

Hutchison’s

was

court

properly

seven

prior

Appeal: 13-4250

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/06/2013

Pg: 4 of 5

embezzlement convictions could not be counted separately.
§ 4A1.2(a)(2).
category

as

USSG

Other than noting that category I is the same

a

defendant

with

no

prior

criminal

history,

the

court’s explanation for its sentence did not address Hutchison’s
arguments against a departure.

Nor did the court address those

arguments

in

at

any

other

point

the

sentencing

proceedings.

Thus, contrary to the Government’s assertions, we conclude that
the

court

procedurally

erred.

Further,

the

error

was

not

harmless, as there is no indication in the record that the court
would

have

imposed

the

same

sentence

if

it

had

addressed

Hutchison’s arguments.
Hutchison

also

argues

that

the

court

substantively

erred in characterizing her seven prior embezzlement convictions
as

providing

repeated

opportunities

for

rehabilitation.

The

Government argues that this is merely a recharacterization of
the

procedural

argument

asserted

by

Hutchison,

and

that

the

court acted within its discretion in imposing the sentence.

We

conclude that, although Hutchison asserts this is a substantive
error,

the

district

court

procedurally

erred

in

its

characterization of Hutchison’s criminal history, specifically
that she “having been given repeated opportunities, simply did
not get the message.”

The record reveals that Hutchison was

convicted in 1998 of seven counts of embezzlement arising from
her thefts from an employer over a seven-month period in 1994.
4

Appeal: 13-4250

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/06/2013

Pg: 5 of 5

Hutchison apparently pled guilty and was sentenced for all seven
counts on the same day.
statement,
learn

Hutchison

from

her

Thus, contrary to the district court’s

did

prior

not

have

crimes,

and

repeated
the

opportunities

court

relied

on

to
an

inaccurate factual basis for its departure.
The Government argues that the sentence is reasonable
based

on

the

factors.

district

The

court

court’s
did

reference

not,

to

however,

sentence, but a departure sentence.

the

impose

§ 3553(a)
a

variance

Although the court invoked

certain § 3553(a) factors, nowhere in its explanation did the
court

state

imposed

the

that,

even

same

without

sentence

as

the
an

departure,
upward

it

would

variance

from

have
the

Guidelines range.
We

therefore

for resentencing. *
facts

and

materials

legal
before

vacate

Hutchison’s

sentence

and

remand

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

Court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

*

Having found procedural error, we express no opinion on
the substantive reasonableness of Hutchison’s sentence.
On
remand, the district court is free to determine whether a
sentence outside the calculated Guidelines range is appropriate.

5