US v. Douglas Holden
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cr-00207-TMC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999671934].. [15-4207]
Appeal: 15-4207
Doc: 41
Filed: 10/05/2015
Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4207
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DOUGLAS RAY HOLDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(8:14-cr-00207-TMC-1)
Submitted:
September 28, 2015
Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.
and
WYNN,
Circuit
Decided:
Judges,
and
October 5, 2015
DAVIS,
Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kimberly H. Albro, Research and Writing Specialist, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4207
Doc: 41
Filed: 10/05/2015
Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Ray Holden appeals the 120-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to brandishing a firearm during and in
relation
to
a
crime
of
§ 924(c)(1)(A) (2012).
violence,
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
On appeal, he challenges the procedural
and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
We affirm.
We review a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or
significantly
deferential
outside
the
Guidelines
abuse-of-discretion
range[,]
standard.”
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
Gall
under
v.
a
United
We first consider whether the
district court committed significant procedural error, such as
incorrect
calculation
consideration
of
the
of
18
the
Guidelines
U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)
range,
insufficient
(2012)
inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed.
factors,
or
United States
v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111-12 (4th Cir. 2015).
In
record
announcing
an
a
sentence,
individualized
the
court
assessment
facts of the case before it.”
based
“must
on
place
the
on
the
particular
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The explanation must be adequate “to satisfy the appellate court
that the district court has considered the parties’ arguments
and
has
a
reasoned
basis
decisionmaking authority.”
for
exercising
its
own
legal
United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d
832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (brackets and internal quotation marks
2
Appeal: 15-4207
Doc: 41
Filed: 10/05/2015
omitted).
“Where
the
Pg: 3 of 6
defendant
or
prosecutor
presents
nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence than that
set forth in the advisory Guidelines, a district judge should
address the party’s arguments and explain why he has rejected
those arguments.”
marks omitted).
Carter, 564 F.3d at 328 (internal quotation
The court’s explanation generally must provide
“some indication” that it considered both the § 3553(a) factors
as they relate to the defendant and the parties’ potentially
meritorious
sentencing
arguments.
United
States
v.
Montes-
Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006).
Holden analogizes to United States v. Patterson, 557 F.
App’x
558
(7th
district
court
recognize
its
mitigation.
court’s
Cir.
2014)
committed
discretion
(No.
13-1517),
procedural
to
to
error
consider
his
argue
in
that
the
failing
to
substance
abuse
in
We find Patterson readily distinguishable, as the
statements
authority.
demonstrate
no
misunderstanding
of
its
At the outset of the sentencing hearing, the court
specifically
noted
that
psychological
report
in
it
had
preparation
considered
for
a
forensic
sentencing,
and
its
comments during the hearing reveal that it had both heard and
considered
court
Holden’s
also
Holden’s
argument
noted
Holden’s
relevant
history
regarding
substance
and
explanation of his sentence.
3
the
abuse
evaluation.
when
characteristics
The
describing
during
its
Appeal: 15-4207
Doc: 41
Filed: 10/05/2015
Pg: 4 of 6
The specific sentencing claim on which Holden focuses was
but
a
small
argument.
part
of
defense
counsel’s
lengthy
sentencing
The court addressed counsel’s argument and provided a
detailed, individualized explanation for its sentence, grounded
expressly
in
the
relevant
§ 3553(a)
factors.
Viewed
on
the
whole, the court’s statements were sufficient to indicate that
the court considered Holden’s argument regarding his substance
abuse when determining his sentence.
See Montes-Pineda, 445
F.3d at 380.
Having
found
substantive
totality
procedural
reasonableness
of
Substantive
no
the
of
error,
Holden’s
circumstances.”
reasonableness
consider
sentence
Gall,
considers
we
552
whether
under
U.S.
“the
the
“the
at
51.
sentencing
court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it
chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).”
United
States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
In evaluating substantive reasonableness, we must consider “the
extent
of
any
variance
from
the
Guidelines
range.”
United
States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 425 (4th Cir. 2015).
A sentence is not unreasonable simply because the district
court could have weighed the § 3553(a) factors differently in
selecting a sentence.
(4th Cir. 2012).
United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 290
Greater variances are subject to more intense
appellate scrutiny, and “[t]he farther the court diverges from
4
Appeal: 15-4207
Doc: 41
Filed: 10/05/2015
Pg: 5 of 6
the advisory guideline range, the more compelling the reasons
for the divergence must be.”
United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d
284, 288 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
However,
“[a]
district
court’s
decision
to
vary
from
the
Guidelines for an outside-the-heartland case is entitled to the
greatest respect.”
Lymas, 781 F.3d at 112 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Although the court imposed a significant upward variance,
we conclude the court’s analysis of the § 3553(a) factors and
relevant
sentencing
considerations
extent of the variance.
case
to
which
compared
his
sentencing.
The
justified
the
The parties now dispute the type of
Holden’s
offense
sufficiently
offense
only
troubling
should
to
be
domestic
facts
of
compared,
violence
but
they
at
offense,
Holden’s
cases
as
detailed by the sentencing court, and the sentences to which he
could have been subject for his offenses, support the court’s
conclusion that Holden’s offense fell outside the heartland of
both § 924(c) and domestic violence cases.
“extremely
broad
discretion”
accorded
In light of the
sentencing
courts
in
weighing the § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Jeffery,
631
F.3d
669,
679
(4th
Cir.
2011),
we
discern
no
abuse
of
discretion in the sentence imposed by the court.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
5
the
facts
and
We
legal
Appeal: 15-4207
Doc: 41
contentions
are
Filed: 10/05/2015
adequately
Pg: 6 of 6
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
6
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?