United States v. Quattlebaum , 283 F. App'x 98 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4676
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES MATTHEW QUATTLEBAUM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(3:05-cr-00760-MBS)
Submitted: June 3, 2008 Decided: July 2, 2008
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. Michael Duncan, AUSTIN & ROGERS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Kevin F. McDonald, Acting United States Attorney,
Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Matthew Quattlebaum pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute
methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846(2000), and was sentenced to 262 months’ imprisonment. Quattlebaum
appeals, arguing that the court erred by enhancing his sentence
based on endangerment to a minor and by denying his motion for a
below-guidelines variance sentence.
First, Quattlebaum argues that the district court erred
in applying a six-level child endangerment enhancement under U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2D1.1(b)(6)(C) (2005) (now
§ 2D1.1(b)(8)(c)), because Quattlebaum did not actually manufacture
methamphetamine in the presence of minors. He also points out that
the enhancement added over ten years to his minimum Guidelines
sentence, exceeding the ten-year maximum penalty to which he would
have been subject if convicted of endangerment through the
manufacture of methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 858 (2000).1
Therefore, he contends that his sentence violates his Sixth
Amendment rights under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005).
1
The Government dismissed a charge of creating a risk to human
life through the manufacture of methamphetamine in exchange for
Quattlebaum’s guilty plea to the conspiracy charge. The
endangerment charge carried a maximum statutory penalty of ten
years. 21 U.S.C. § 858 (2000).
- 2 -
In the plea agreement, however, Quattlebaum stipulated to
the application of the endangerment enhancement. The court
reviewed, and Quattlebaum confirmed, that stipulation during the
plea hearing. Moreover, no Sixth Amendment error occurred because
Quattlebaum’s sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum for
the crime of which he was convicted. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2008), Quattlebaum faced a
maximum life sentence on the conspiracy charge and a mandatory
minimum sentence of ten years.2
Next, Quattlebaum asserts that the district court erred
in denying him a sentencing variance. Following Booker, a district
court must engage in a multi-step process at sentencing. First, it
must calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range. It must
then consider the resulting range in conjunction with the factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), and
determine an appropriate sentence. United States v. Davenport, 445
F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006).
Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a
sentence is for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S.
Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d
468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). The appellate court must first ensure
that the district court committed no procedural error, such as
2
The conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. § 846, provides that the
penalties shall be “the same penalties as those prescribed for the
[underlying] offense.”
- 3 -
“failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the § 3553(a) factors, 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, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If there are no
procedural errors, the appellate court then considers the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. “Substantive
reasonableness review entails taking into account the totality of
the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.” Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Here, the district court followed the necessary
procedural steps in sentencing Quattlebaum, properly calculating
the Guidelines range and considering that recommendation in
conjunction with the § 3553(a) factors. While Quattlebaum contends
that the court erred in denying his motion for a variance sentence
based on the onerous conditions of local custody, no comparative
evidence corroborated his assertion that his pretrial confinement
was atypically harsh. The district court granted Quattlebaum’s
request for credit for the time spent in local custody, but
- 4 -
concluded a downward variance was not “appropriate” and imposed the
minimum sentence within the Guidelines range.3
The district court considered and rejected Quattlebaum’s
arguments in support of a variance and based its sentence on the
Guidelines range and the § 3553(a) factors. We conclude the court
did not err in denying the variance motion. Nothing in the record
rebuts the presumption that the sentence, within the properly
calculated Guidelines range, is reasonable. United States v. Go,
517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008) (“If the sentence is within the
Guidelines range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness.”); see
Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007) (holding
court of appeals may apply such a presumption of reasonableness).
Accordingly, we affirm Quattlebaum’s conviction and 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
Quattlebaum points to several decisions from other
jurisdictions holding that extremely harsh conditions of pretrial
confinement may be a mitigating circumstance justifying the
imposition of a below-guidelines sentence. See, e.g., United
States v. Carty, 264 F.3d 191, 196 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
Nothing in the decisions cited by Quattlebaum leads to the
conclusion that the district court abused its discretion in denying
Quattlebaum’s motion for a variance in this case.
- 5 -