United States v. Aldranard Bennett , 439 F. App'x 278 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ALDRANARD JARMEL BENNETT,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cr-00083-F-1)
Submitted: July 14, 2011 Decided: July 21, 2011
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aldranard Jarmel Bennett appeals his conviction and
120-month sentence after he pled guilty without a plea agreement
to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (West 2000 & Supp. 2011).
Bennett’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court
committed reversible error when it failed to address his request
for a below-Guidelines sentence because of his ailing health.
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
Because Bennett requested a sentence below his
Guidelines range, his claim was properly preserved, and this
court reviews it for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion
standard, reversing “unless . . . the error was harmless.”
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010)
(“By drawing arguments from § 3553 for a sentence different than
the one ultimately imposed, an aggrieved party sufficiently
alerts the district court of its responsibility to render an
individualized explanation addressing those arguments, and thus
preserves its claim.”).
This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This court must first
assess whether the district court properly calculated the
advisory Guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors,
2
analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see
Lynn, 592 F.3d at 576 (“[A]n individualized explanation must
accompany every sentence.”) (emphasis in original); United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding
that the “individualized assessment . . . must provide a
rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and [be]
adequate to permit meaningful appellate review”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). “Although a court need
not necessarily issue a comprehensive, detailed opinion, the
court’s explanation must nonetheless be sufficient ‘to satisfy
the appellate court that [the district court] has considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its]
own legal decisionmaking authority.’” United States v.
Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).
The district court’s explanation "need not be
elaborate or lengthy[,]" however. Carter, 564 F.3d at 330.
“That is especially true where, as here, the sentence is inside
the advisory guidelines range.” United States v. Johnson, 587
F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2128(2010). As this court has noted: “Gall was quite explicit that
district courts should provide more significant justifications
for major departures than for minor ones. But when a district
3
court does not depart or vary at all, it may provide a less
extensive, while still individualized, explanation.” Id.(internal citations, quotation marks and brackets omitted).
If there is no procedural error, we may then review
the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into
account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent
of any variance from the Guidelines range.” United States v.
Morace, 594 F.3d 340, 346 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). However, we presume that a
sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is
reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2007).
We reject Bennett’s argument that his sentence should
be vacated because the district court did not explain why it
rejected his health-related argument. This court may look to
the entirety of Bennett’s sentencing proceeding to determine
whether the district court understood Bennett’s argument for a
reduced sentence but had reasons for rejecting that argument.
See Rita, 551 U.S. at 344-45, 358-59. Unlike in Lynn, it is
apparent from the record that the district court considered
counsel’s argument for a below-Guidelines sentence, stated that
it was adopting the presentence investigation report’s (“PSR”)
findings as its rationale for Bennett’s sentence, and discussed
the § 3553(a) factors it believed justified Bennett’s sentence.
4
See United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 272 (4th Cir.
2010) (finding no procedural error where the district court
adopted the PSR, heard counsels’ argument and the defendant’s
allocution, stated that it considered the § 3553(a) factors and
concluded that a Guidelines sentence satisfied those factors,
and imposed the sentence requested by the defendant, while
explicitly recognizing that the last criterion was not
dispositive of its affirmance); cf. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 584-85(finding reversible error where the district court gave “no
indication that [it] considered the defendant’s nonfrivolous
arguments prior to sentencing him” and stated only that it found
Lynn’s sentence to be “fair and appropriate and consistent with
the requirements of § 3553(a)” before imposing Lynn’s sentence)
(internal ellipses and brackets omitted).
Although, admittedly, it would have been preferable
for the district court to have specifically mentioned Bennett’s
health when it explained how it believed the § 3553(a) factors
justified the sentence imposed, the district court explicitly
acknowledged that it was aware of Bennett’s ailing health before
imposing sentence and indicated that it was recommending a
particular correctional institution “because of its medical
facilities[.]” Thus, the record makes clear that the district
court “considered the [defendant's] . . . arguments” in
fashioning its sentence. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 359.
5
We find that the district court’s analysis as to why
it believed the 120-month sentence was justified under § 3553(a)
allows this court to conduct “meaningful appellate review” and
promote[s] the perception of fair sentencing[,]” and that its
reasoning for Bennett’s sentence was sufficiently individualized
and reflected a considered rationale. Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.
Thus, because the sentencing transcript makes clear that the
district court considered counsel’s arguments for a below-
Guidelines sentence but had a “reasoned basis for exercising its
own legal decisionmaking authority,” United States v. Engle, 592
F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir.) (quoting Rita, 551 U.S. at 356), cert.
denied, 131 S. Ct. 165 (2010), we affirm the district court’s
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
6