United States v. Hannah ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4124
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ELDEN PIERRE HANNAH,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00021-TLW-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 17, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sol Z. Rosen, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Arthur Bradley
Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elden Pierre Hannah pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to trafficking in counterfeit goods, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2320(a) (West 2006 & Supp. 2009), and conspiring to
possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine
base and five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). As part of his plea agreement, Hannah
also agreed to an extensive forfeiture provision. The district
court departed downward from Hannah’s advisory Guidelines range
and sentenced him to 168 months’ imprisonment. Hannah noted his
appeal and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). ∗ We affirm the judgment of the district
court.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in
accepting Hannah’s guilty plea and in determining that his
guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. See United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). The plea was
also supported by an adequate factual basis.
Additionally, Hannah’s sentence was reasonable. This
court reviews a sentence imposed by a district court under a
∗
Although Hannah was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, he has not done so.
2
deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d
155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). In reviewing a sentence, the
appellate court must “first ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error,” such as improperly
calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If there
are no procedural errors, the appellate court then considers the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id.“When rendering a sentence, the district court must
make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented”
and “state in open court the particular reasons supporting its
chosen sentence.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328
(4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). This requires the district court to provide a
sufficient explanation of the sentence to satisfy this court
that the district court has a reasoned basis for its decision
and has considered the parties’ arguments. Id. This court
presumes a sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines
range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193
(4th Cir. 2007).
Hannah’s sentence was both procedurally and
substantively reasonable. The district court properly
3
calculated Hannah’s advisory Guidelines range and adequately
explained Hannah’s sentence. Additionally, Hannah received a
substantial downward departure based on his cooperation, and the
materials submitted on appeal do not rebut the presumption of
reasonableness this court affords his within Guidelines sentence
on appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Hannah’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Hannah, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Hannah 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 Hannah.
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
4