United States v. Ronnie Hamilton, Jr. , 695 F. App'x 718 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-4478
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    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
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    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,
    2
    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.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-4478

Citation Numbers: 695 F. App'x 718

Judges: Wilkinson, Harris, Hamilton

Filed Date: 8/17/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024