United States v. Hancock , 259 F. App'x 609 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4389
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES THOMAS HANCOCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00-206)
Submitted: December 17, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton B. Shoaf, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna
Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, David P. Folmar, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Thomas Hancock was convicted by a jury of bank
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(a) (2000); bank
robbery with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,
2113(d) (2000); and brandishing a firearm during a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000), 18 U.S.C.A.
§§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 924(c)(1)(B)(I) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). On
appeal, he challenges the district court’s denial of his
suppression motion and the imposition of a 174-month sentence of
imprisonment. We affirm.
This court reviews the factual findings underlying the
denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and the legal
conclusions de novo. United States v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 187, 193
(4th Cir. 2005). The evidence is construed in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party below. United States v. Seidman,
156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). The question of voluntariness
turns on the “totality of the circumstances,” including the
“characteristics of the defendant, the setting of the interview,
and the details of the interrogation.” United States v. Pelton,
835 F.2d 1067, 1071 (4th Cir. 1987). A statement will be deemed
involuntary if the accused’s will has been “overborne” or his
“capacity for self-determination critically impaired.” Id.We find that the district court did not err in denying
Hancock’s suppression motion. We have recognized that truthful
- 2 -
statements about the accused’s predicament are not the type of
“coercion” that renders his statement involuntary. See Pelton, 835
F.2d at 1072-73. Here, the investigator’s reference to Hancock’s
mother was not a threat, but rather a true statement about his
mother’s predicament.* The statement was not sufficiently coercive
to overbear Hancock’s will or impair his capacity for self-
determination.
We further find that the district court properly applied
the Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing
factors before imposing the 174-month sentence under 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). We therefore conclude the
sentence imposed was reasonable. See United States v. Johnson, 445
F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct.
2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness
accorded within-guidelines sentence). Accordingly, we affirm
Hancock’s sentence.
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
*
Significantly, Hancock does not challenge the veracity of the
investigator’s statement about his mother.
- 3 -