US v. Theodore Well

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00249-CMH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999887533].. [15-4650]

Appeal: 15-4650

Doc: 36

Filed: 07/14/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4650

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THEODORE WILLIAM WELLS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00249-CMH-1)

Submitted:

June 16, 2016

Decided:

July 14, 2016

Before KING, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew M. Stewart, DENNIS, STEWART, KRISCHER & TERPAK, PLLC,
Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United
States Attorney, Joseph V. Longobardo, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4650

Doc: 36

Filed: 07/14/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Theodore

William

Wells

appeals

the

18-month

sentence

imposed by the district court at resentencing following a remand
from this court.

Wells argues that the district court abused

its discretion when it denied his renewed motion for new counsel
and that the court failed to adequately explain its reasons for
imposing its sentence.
We

review

a

We affirm.

district

court’s

ruling

on

a

motion

to

substitute counsel for an abuse of discretion, United States v.
Horton, 693 F.3d 463, 466 (4th Cir. 2012), “consider[ing] three
factors
adequacy

. . . :
of

(1)

the

the

court’s

timeliness
subsequent

of

the

inquiry

motion;
[into

(2)

the

defendant’s

complaint]; and (3) whether the attorney/client conflict was so
great

that

it

had

resulted

in

preventing an adequate defense,”
marks omitted).

total

lack

of

communication

id. at 467 (internal quotation

We discern no abuse of discretion here.

It is

clear that Wells and his counsel were able to communicate with
each other, as Wells’ statements to the district court at both
sentencing hearings indicated that he disagreed with counsel’s
presentation of arguments in the original sentencing position
paper.

While

Wells

was

dissatisfied

with

counsel’s

advice,

their disagreement was not sufficient to demonstrate that Wells
was not provided an adequate defense.

2

Appeal: 15-4650

Doc: 36

Wells

Filed: 07/14/2016

next

contends

Pg: 3 of 4

that

the

adequately explain its sentence.

district

court

did

not

The Government responds that

any error is harmless.

In explaining a sentence, the district

court

to

is

not

required

U.S.C.] § 3553 factors.”
153

(4th

Cir.

2015)

“robotically

tick

through

the

[18

United States v. Helton, 782 F.3d 148,
(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

However, the court “must make an individualized assessment based
on the facts presented when imposing a sentence, applying the
relevant § 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances of the
case

and

the

particular

defendant,

reasons

and

supporting

must

state

its

in

chosen

open

court

sentence.”

the

United

States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 113 (4th Cir. 2015) (emphasis,
alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted).
Procedural

sentencing

error,

including

the

failure

to

adequately explain the chosen sentence, is subject to review for
harmless error.

United States v. Martinovich, 810 F.3d 232,

242-43 (4th Cir. 2016).

“Under that standard, the government

may avoid reversal only if it demonstrates that the error did
not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the
result,” such that we “can say with fair assurance that the
district

court’s

explicit

consideration

of

the

defendant’s

arguments would not have affected the sentence imposed.”
States

v.

Boulware,

604

F.3d

832,

838

(4th

(alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
3

Cir.

United
2010)

Appeal: 15-4650

Doc: 36

Filed: 07/14/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

We conclude that any error is harmless, given that nothing
in

the

Wells’

record

suggests

arguments

would

that

a

more

result

in

a

extensive
lower

discussion

sentence.

of

Wells’

requests for a variance sentence were the only sentencing issues
argued at both hearings.

The district court twice heard Wells’

arguments for a sentence of time served and each time concluded
that a sentence at the low end of the applicable Sentencing
Guidelines

range

was

appropriate.

While

the

court

did

not

extensively discuss its reasons, it noted that it had considered
the nature of the offense and Wells’ age in arriving at its
chosen sentence, indicating it considered Wells’ argument that
the offense was nonviolent.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4