United States v. Aundra Logan , 456 F. App'x 224 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4289
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
AUNDRA LOGAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00020-D-1)
Submitted: November 21, 2011 Decided: December 1, 2011
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey M. Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, P.S.C., Covington,
Kentucky, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aundra Logan pled guilty without a plea agreement to
one count of escape from custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 751(a) (2006). At sentencing, the district court calculated
Logan’s Guidelines range at twelve to eighteen months’
imprisonment, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) (2010),
and imposed an upward variant sentence of thirty-six months’
imprisonment. On appeal, Logan challenges this sentence as
procedurally and substantively unreasonable. * We affirm.
We review the district court’s sentence, “whether
inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines
range,” under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This
abuse-of-discretion standard of review involves two steps; under
the first, we examine the sentence for significant procedural
errors, and under the second, we review the substance of the
sentence. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir.
2007) (examining Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51). Significant
procedural errors include “failing to calculate (or improperly
*
We previously affirmed Logan’s conviction, vacated the
district court’s imposition of a thirty-six-month sentence, and
remanded for resentencing. United States v. Logan, 395 F. App’x
38 (4th Cir. 2010) (No. 08-4853). We reject as without merit
the Government’s contention that Logan’s appellate challenge to
the district court’s calculation of the Guidelines range at
resentencing is barred from consideration by the mandate rule.
2
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 explain the chosen
sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If there are no significant
procedural errors, we then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the
totality of the circumstances.” Id.When the district court imposes a variant sentence, we
consider “whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both
with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with
respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing
range.” United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118,
123 (4th Cir. 2007). This court has recognized, however, that a
district court’s error in its sentencing calculations is
rendered harmless if the sentence is ultimately justified by the
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d
155, 165 (4th Cir. 2008) (“[E]ven assuming the district court
erred in applying the Guideline departure provisions, [the
defendant’s] sentence, which is well-justified by [the]
§ 3553(a) factors, is reasonable.”); see also Puckett v. United
States, 556 U.S. 129, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1432 (2009) (stating
that “procedural errors at sentencing . . . are routinely
subject to harmlessness review”); United States v. Mehta, 594
3
F.3d 277, 283 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 279 (2010)
(citing cases supporting the proposition that harmless error
review applies to errors in sentencing calculations).
Logan argues that the district court erred in imposing
a two-level enhancement to his offense level under USSG
§ 3B1.1(c). However, we conclude after review of the record
that, even assuming the district court erred in its calculation
of the Guidelines range, the court’s thorough and meaningful
articulation of relevant § 3553(a) factors that also justified
the imposition of the thirty-six-month sentence renders the
sentence reasonable.
We therefore affirm the district court’s amended
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