United States v. David Hallman , 549 F. App'x 147 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-4086
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DAVID MATTHEW HALLMAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
    District Judge. (1:12-cr-00010-CCE-1)
    Submitted:   November 21, 2013            Decided:   December 13, 2013
    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
    Carolina, for Appellant.   Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    David   Matthew        Hallman      pled      guilty,   pursuant   to    a
    written plea agreement, to four counts of using a minor child to
    engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of creating
    child   pornography,         in    violation      of   18    U.S.C.   §   2251(a),    (e)
    (2012).       Although Hallman’s Guidelines range resulted in a life
    sentence,      this    was        limited   by     the      applicable     thirty-year
    statutory maximum.           See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e).             The district court
    thus imposed four consecutive thirty-year sentences, resulting
    in an aggregate term of 1440 months’ imprisonment.                            See U.S.
    Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.2(d) (2011).
    On   appeal,        counsel   has    filed      a   brief   pursuant     to
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), certifying that there
    are no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal, but asking us to review
    Hallman’s convictions and the reasonableness of the sentence.
    Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
    brief, Hallman has not done so.                  The Government has declined to
    file a response brief.             For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
    Because Hallman did not move in the district court to
    withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
    hearing for plain error.               United States v. Martinez, 
    277 F.3d 517
    ,    525   (4th    Cir.    2002).        To    prevail     under   this   standard,
    Hallman must establish that an error occurred, that this error
    was plain, and that it affected his substantial rights.                          United
    2
    States v. Massenburg, 
    564 F.3d 337
    , 342–43 (4th Cir. 2009).                              Our
    review of the record establishes that the district court fully
    complied with the mandates of Rule 11, ensuring that Hallman’s
    plea was knowing and voluntary, and supported by an independent
    basis in fact.      We therefore affirm Hallman’s convictions.
    We    review        Hallman’s         sentence      for     reasonableness,
    applying    an    abuse    of    discretion         standard.          Gall    v.    United
    States,    
    552 U.S. 38
    ,    46,    51    (2007).         This     review     requires
    consideration       of      both        the       procedural          and     substantive
    reasonableness of the sentence.                    
    Id. at 51.
             We first assess
    whether    the    district      court     properly         calculated       the   advisory
    Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
    § 3553(a)     (2012),      analyzed       any       arguments     presented         by   the
    parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.                               
    Id. at 49–51;
    see United States v. Lynn, 
    592 F.3d 572
    , 575–76 (4th
    Cir. 2010).
    If    there    is      no    procedural         error,     we     review     the
    substantive      reasonableness         of    the    sentence,        “examin[ing]       the
    totality    of    the    circumstances        to     see    whether     the    sentencing
    court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it
    chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).”                               United
    States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 
    597 F.3d 212
    , 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
    If the sentence is within the defendant’s properly calculated
    Guidelines       range,    we     apply       a     presumption        of     substantive
    3
    reasonableness.            United States v. Bynum, 
    604 F.3d 161
    , 168-69
    (4th Cir. 2010); see Rita v. United States, 
    551 U.S. 338
    , 347
    (2007) (permitting appellate presumption of reasonableness for
    within-Guidelines sentence).
    We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
    that     the    sentence      is      both    procedurally         and   substantively
    reasonable.           We    discern     no    error    in    the    district    court’s
    computation of Hallman’s Guidelines range, the opportunities it
    provided Hallman and his counsel to speak in mitigation, or its
    explanation of the sentence imposed by reference to the relevant
    § 3553(a)       factors.           In    addition      to     noting     its    overall
    consideration of the relevant sentencing factors, the district
    court     opined      that     the      aggregate      1440-month        sentence   was
    appropriate given the seriousness of Hallman’s offense conduct,
    which included recording the repeated rapes and sexual abuse he
    and his co-defendant inflicted on multiple minor children, and
    the need to impose a just punishment that would protect the
    public    from     any      such     future       criminal   conduct      by   Hallman.
    Finally, we have found no basis in the record to overcome the
    presumption      of     reasonableness        accorded       the    within-Guidelines
    sentence the district court imposed.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.     We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
    4
    This court requires that counsel inform Hallman, in writing, of
    the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
    further review.      If Hallman requests that a petition be filed,
    but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
    then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
    representation.      Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
    was served on Hallman.        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
    5