United States v. Sheldon Hampton , 458 F. App'x 295 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4590
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHELDON HAMPTON, a/k/a Shells,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00066-IMK-JSK-2)
Submitted: November 28, 2011 Decided: December 15, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William L. Pennington, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, John C. Parr,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sheldon Hampton appeals the ninety-two-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute
more than 500 grams of cocaine and more than twenty-eight grams
of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 846, 841(a)(1)
(2006), and tampering with a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1512(a)(2)(A) (2006). Counsel for Hampton filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether the district court erred in denying
Hampton’s motion for a variant sentence and whether the district
court erred in imposing a sentence in the middle of the
Guidelines range. Counsel states, however, that he has found no
meritorious grounds for appeal. Although notified of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, Hampton did not do so. We
affirm.
We review a sentence imposed by a district court under
a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d
572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010). We begin by reviewing the sentence
for significant procedural error, including such errors as
“failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
2
explain the chosen sentence — including an explanation for any
deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If
there are no procedural errors, we then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality
of the circumstances. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597
F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
“When rendering a sentence, the district court ‘must
make an individualized assessment based on the facts
presented.’” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th
Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50) (emphasis omitted).
Accordingly, a sentencing court must apply the relevant
§ 3553(a) factors to the particular facts presented and must
“‘state in open court’” the particular reasons that support its
chosen sentence. Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(c) (West 2000
& Supp. 2011)). The court’s explanation need not be exhaustive;
it must 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)) (alterations omitted).
We conclude that the sentence imposed by the district
court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Hampton’s within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable, and
3
there is nothing in the record to rebut that presumption. See
United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.
2006) (“A defendant can only rebut the presumption by
demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.” (internal quotation marks and
alteration omitted)). The district court calculated the
Guidelines range and understood that it was advisory.
Furthermore, it is apparent that the court had a reasoned basis
both for denying Hampton’s requested variant sentence and for
imposing a sentence in the middle of the Guidelines range. The
court made an individualized statement explaining the sentence
imposed. We conclude the sentence was reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Hampton, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Hampton 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
Hampton. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
4
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5