United States v. Hardin , 151 F. App'x 267 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4808
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KELON RENARDO HARDIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-01-559)
Submitted: September 30, 2005 Decided: October 18, 2005
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew D. Grimes, ANDREW D. GRIMES, P.A., North Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, Acting United States
Attorney, Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kelon Renardo Hardin was convicted on several federal
drug and firearms charges and, on resentencing, the district court
imposed an aggregate sentence of 528 months’ imprisonment. The
district court also specified an identical alternate sentence of
528 months pursuant to this court’s recommendation in United
States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004) (order), opinion
issued by 381 F.3d 316, 353-54 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert.
granted and judgment vacated, 125 S. Ct. 1051 (2005).
Hardin appeals, challenging the constitutionality of his
sentence in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States
v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Hardin specifically argues that
his sentence was unconstitutionally enhanced based on findings by
the court, rather than the jury. He also contends that the
alternate sentence is unreasonable, because the district court did
not consider the relevant factors before imposing the sentence.
Because the alternate sentence the district court
pronounced in the event the federal sentencing guidelines were
invalidated was identical to the sentence imposed under the federal
sentencing guidelines as they existed at that time, we conclude
that any error resulting from the district court’s determination of
Hardin’s sentence under a mandatory sentencing guideline regime was
harmless. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 769. We note that, contrary
to Hardin’s assertion, the district court did consider the factors
- 2 -
in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), before imposing
the alternate sentence. Therefore, we affirm Hardin’s sentence.
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
- 3 -