US v. Ronnie Hamilton, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:16-cr-00006-RGD-LRL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4478]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
RONNIE HAMILTON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:16-cr-00006-RGD-LRL-1)
Submitted: July 26, 2017
Decided: August 17, 2017
Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Andrew W. Grindrod, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney,
Christopher Catizone, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Ronnie Hamilton, Jr., pled guilty without a plea agreement to being a felon in
possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924
(2012). He was sentenced to a term of 32 months’ imprisonment. Hamilton alleges on
appeal that the district court procedurally erred by incorrectly calculating his Sentencing
Guidelines range. We affirm.
We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Under this standard, a sentence
is reviewed for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. In determining
procedural reasonableness, this court considers whether, among other things, the district
court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range.
Id. at 49-51.
Hamilton asserts that the district court miscalculated his Guidelines range by erroneously
finding that his prior conviction in Virginia for unlawful wounding qualified as a crime of
violence, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), 4B1.2
(2015), and enhancing his base offense level accordingly.
Hamilton’s claim is unavailing. The Supreme Court recently held in Beckles v.
United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), that the Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness
challenge under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Id. at 892, 895, 897. The
Court explained that, unlike the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause, which was
invalidated in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), “§ 4B1.2(a)’s residual
clause is not void for vagueness.” Id. at 895, 897. Hamilton’s Virginia conviction for
unlawful wounding remains a crime of violence under the residual clause post-Beckles,
Pg: 3 of 3
notwithstanding that the Government conceded in the district court that the residual
clause was void for vagueness. See United States v. Lee, 855 F.3d 244, 247 (4th Cir.
2017) (holding that Virginia conviction for unlawful wounding qualified as a crime of
violence under the career offender guideline’s residual clause).
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?