United States v. Demetrius Gardner ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4543
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEMETRIUS TYRONE GARDNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00028-JPJ-PMS-1; 1:09-cv-80154-JPJ)
Submitted: January 29, 2013 Decided: February 6, 2013
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Beck,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Jean B.
Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Galen B. Bascom, Third
Year Law Intern, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Tyrone Gardner was convicted by a jury of
one count of conspiracy to distribute or possess with the intent
to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846, 851 (2006); and two counts of
perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (2006). Although
Gardner was originally sentenced to 360 months in prison, after
a successful 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion, the
district court re-sentenced him to 292 months in prison. On
appeal, Gardner asserts that his 292-month within-Guidelines
range sentence is procedurally unreasonable because he argues
that the district court failed to adequately explain its basis
for rejecting his crack-to-powder cocaine sentencing disparity
argument, and failed to address his age-related recidivism
argument. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
this court reviews a sentence for reasonableness. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this
review requires us to ensure that the district court committed
no significant procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526
F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include
“failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the [18 U.S.C.A.] § 3553(a) [(West 2000 & Supp. 2012)] factors,
2
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence — including an
explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall,
552 U.S. at 51.
“[I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of procedural
sentencing error . . . which it has made before the district
court, we review for abuse of discretion” and will reverse
unless we conclude “that the error was harmless.” United States
v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). For instance, if
“an aggrieved party sufficiently alerts the district court of
its responsibility to render an individualized explanation” by
drawing arguments from § 3553 “for a sentence different than the
one ultimately imposed,” the party sufficiently “preserves its
claim.” Id. at 578. However, this court reviews unpreserved
non-structural sentencing errors for plain error. Id. at 576-
77. Because Gardner repeats on appeal arguments he raised in
the district court, we review for abuse of discretion. Id. at
576.
If, and only if, we find the sentence procedurally
reasonable can we consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence imposed. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328
(4th Cir. 2009). We presume that a sentence within the
Guidelines range is reasonable. See United States v. Mendoza-
Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e may and do
3
treat on appeal a district court’s decision to impose a sentence
within the Guidelines range as presumptively reasonable.”). We
have reviewed the record and have considered Gardner’s arguments
and discern no error in the district court’s decision to impose
the 292-month sentence.
In particular, a district court need not provide a
“comprehensive, detailed opinion” as long as it has satisfied
the appellate court that it “has considered the parties’
arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal
decisionmaking authority.” United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d
495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 356 (2007)) (internal quotation marks and alterations
omitted). In this case, the district court acknowledged the
parties’ arguments but believed a within-Guidelines sentence was
necessary to accomplish § 3553(a)’s mandate. We hold that the
district court’s explanation for Gardner’s sentence was
adequate, is sufficient to satisfy this court that it considered
the parties’ arguments, and that it had a “reasoned basis for
exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Engle,
592 F.3d 495, 500. Accordingly, we hold that the district court
did not err when it imposed the 292-month sentence.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
4
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5