United States v. Harris, 4th Cir. (2009)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Harris, 4th Cir. (2009)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4945
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM FELTON HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00083-F-1)
Submitted:
June 15, 2009
Decided:
July 10, 2009
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, J.
Gaston B. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Felton Harris pled guilty to possession of a
firearm
by
(2006).
felon,
He
to
of
sentence
18
U.S.C.
922(g)(1)
of
forty-six
months
On appeal, Harris contends the district court
adequately
sentencing
violation
received
imprisonment.
failed
in
regarding
consider
his
ties
the
to
arguments
his
made
family
and
during
did
not
adequately explain its rationale for the sentence imposed.
We
review
sentence
abuse-of-discretion standard.
586, 597 (2007).
of
both
the
sentence.
for
reasonableness
under
an
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct.
This review requires appellate consideration
procedural
and
substantive
reasonableness
of
Id.
In
determining
whether
sentence
is
procedurally
reasonable, we first assess whether the district court properly
calculated the defendants advisory guideline range.
596-97.
range
A sentence within the properly calculated guideline
may
be
reasonableness.
2462
Id. at
(2007).
afforded
an
appellate
presumption
of
Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2459,
We
then
determine
whether
the
district
court
failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006) factors and
any
arguments
presented
by
the
parties,
selected
sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failed to sufficiently
explain the selected sentence.
Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597.
2
When rendering a sentence, the district court must
make an individualized assessment based on the facts
presented.
That is, the sentencing court must apply
the
relevant
3553(a)
factors
to
the
specific
circumstances
of
the
case
before
it.
Such
individualized treatment is necessary to consider
every convicted person as an individual and every case
as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes
mitigate,
sometimes magnify,
the
crime
and
the
punishment to ensue.
United
States
(quoting
v.
Gall,
564
Carter,
128
S.
Ct.
F.3d
at
325,
597-98)
328
(4th
(internal
Cir.
2009)
citations
omitted).
Under Carter, the sentencing judge is required to
state
open
in
court
chosen sentence.
omitted).
the
particular
reasons
supporting
its
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
In so doing, the district court must set forth
enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the
parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his
own legal decisionmaking authority.
Id. (quoting Rita, 127 S.
Ct. at 2468).
Finally, assuming no procedural infirmity, we review
the
substantive
reasonableness
of
the
sentence,
taking
into
account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent
of any variance from the Guidelines range.
United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 128 S.
Ct. at 597).
When reviewing the district courts application of
the sentencing guidelines, this court reviews findings of fact
for clear error and questions of law de novo.
United States v.
Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct.
2525 (2008).
It is clear from the record that the district court
correctly
Harris
calculated
does
presumption
not
of
Harriss
argue
advisory
otherwise.
reasonableness
guidelines
However,
that
Harriss
range,
despite
and
the
within-guidelines
sentence may be afforded, we conclude that Harriss sentence is
procedurally unreasonable.
The district court failed to state
the reasons supporting Harriss sentence, or otherwise indicate
that it considered the parties arguments and ha[d] a reasoned
basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.
Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2468; see also Carter, 564 F.3d at 330.
Harriss attorney gave a lengthy statement regarding
Harriss
close
family
ties
and
the
Harriss successful rehabilitation.
courts
explanation
conclusory:
range]
as
for
the
importance
of
family
in
Despite this, the district
selected
sentence
was
wholly
The court has considered [the advisory guideline
well
as
other
relevant
factors
set
forth
in
the
advisory sentencing guidelines and those set forth in 18 United
States Code Section 3553(a).
J.A. 33.
Thus, the court failed
to indicate what factors in particular supported the sentence,
and the manner in which they did so.
the
court
did
not
required by Carter.
give
Harris
the
In neglecting this step,
individualized
assessment
Similarly, the judge made no reference to
4
the arguments made by Harriss counsel during sentencing, and
gave no indication that such arguments were considered.
Thus,
because the record here does not demonstrate that the district
court conducted . . . an [individualized] assessment and so does
not reveal why the district court deemed the sentence it imposed
appropriate,
reasonable.
we
cannot
hold
the
sentence
procedurally
Carter, 564 F.3d at 330.
Accordingly, while we affirm Harriss conviction, we
vacate the sentence imposed by the district court and remand for
resentencing.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before
the
court
and
further
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART
