United States v. Hunter , 321 F. App'x 320 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4460
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH RAY HUNTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (2:05-cr-00049-REM-1)
Submitted: January 26, 2009 Decided: March 30, 2009
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew A. Victor, VICTOR, VICTOR & HELGOE, LLP, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States
Attorney, Stephen D. Warner, Assistant United States Attorney,
Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Ray Hunter pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to one count of aiding and abetting the
distribution of more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006), and was
sentenced to 210 months in prison. Hunter timely appealed,
arguing his sentence is unreasonable. Finding no error, we
affirm.
We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594-97 (2007). When sentencing a
defendant, a district court must properly calculate the
guidelines range, determine whether a sentence within that range
serves the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), and
explain its reasons for selecting a sentence. United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir 2007). On appellate review,
we may presume a sentence within the properly calculated
guidelines range is reasonable. Id.; see Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338, __, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding
appellate presumption of reasonableness for a within-guidelines
sentence).
Hunter challenges the substantive reasonableness of
his sentence, asserting that, under the totality of the
circumstances, his sentence was inordinately lengthy. In
2
support of this argument, he argues that the district court gave
too little weight to § 3553(a) considerations such as his
rehabilitation, support from his family and community, and his
health, and placed undue weight on deterrence and the need to
protect the public. However, a review of the sentencing
transcript and the presentence report (“PSR”) reveals no error
in sentencing.
While a district court must explain its sentence, it
need not robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.
United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir.
2006). Here, the court explained that Hunter had a “lengthy and
troubling criminal history” that covered twenty pages in the PSR
and spanned twenty years. The court also found that the instant
offense of collecting a drug debt had potential for serious
violence. Moreover, the court explained that previous periods
of incarceration had not deterred Hunter from criminal conduct.
The court found that based upon the seriousness of the crime and
the need to protect the public and deter further criminal
conduct, a variance from the guidelines range was not warranted.
The district court properly calculated the guidelines
range, considered the appropriate § 3553(a) factors, and
provided ample reasoning for its sentence. Hunter does not
rebut the presumption that his properly calculated, within-
guidelines sentence is reasonable.
3
Accordingly, 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
4