United States v. Hall ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5184
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROLAND FRANK HALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CR-05-116)
Submitted: April 28, 2006 Decided: May 11, 2006
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
S. Benjamin Bryant, CAREY, SCOTT & DOUGLAS, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States
Attorney, Joanne Vella Kirby, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Roland Frank Hall pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1029(a)(1) (2000) and was sentenced to twenty months’
imprisonment. He appeals, contending the sentence imposed by the
district court was unreasonable.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court sustained
Hall’s objections to the calculations contained in the presentence
report (“PSR”) and granted the Government’s U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (2004) motion for downward departure,
based on Hall’s substantial assistance to authorities. Following
these adjustments to the PSR, the advisory guidelines provided for
4 to 10 months’ imprisonment. The district court, commenting on
Hall’s history of thievery of various kinds and previous “extremely
lenient[]” treatment by the courts, regarded the range of
imprisonment as insufficient to provide adequate deterrence and
provide protection for the public from future crimes by Hall.
Thus, the court sentenced Hall to a twenty-month term of
imprisonment.
In imposing a sentence post-United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005), district courts must (1) properly calculate the
sentence range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines;
(2) determine whether a sentence within that range and within
statutory limits serves the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), and, if not, select a sentence
- 2 -
that does serve those factors; (3) implement mandatory statutory
limitations; and (4) articulate the reasons for selecting the
particular sentence, especially explaining why a sentence outside
of the Sentencing Guideline range better serves the relevant
sentencing purposes set forth in § 3553(a). United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006); see United States v.
Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006).
We find that the district court complied with these
directives in imposing Hall’s sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s 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
- 3 -