United States v. Scott , 194 F. App'x 138 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5220
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HERMAN NATHANIEL SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CR-02-267)
Submitted: July 12, 2006 Decided: August 11, 2006
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katherine Carruth Link, West Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Alfred W.
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Herman Nathaniel Scott appeals his 188-month sentence.
We previously vacated his 188-month sentence and remanded for
resentencing in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005). On remand, the district court determined that the
applicable guideline range was 188 to 235 months of imprisonment.
The court then heard argument from the parties regarding the 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) factors and ultimately
decided that the previous sentence was both reasonable and
appropriate. On appeal, Scott contends that his sentence was
unreasonable.
We review a district court’s sentence for reasonableness.
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005).
“Consistent with the remedial scheme set forth in Booker, a
district court shall first calculate (after making the appropriate
findings of fact) the range prescribed by the guidelines.” Id. at
546. Scott does not assert that the district court erred in
determining the applicable advisory guideline range.
Next, the district court must consider this range in
conjunction with other relevant factors under the guidelines and
§ 3553(a) and impose a sentence. Id. The sentence must be “within
the statutorily prescribed range and . . . reasonable.” Id. at
546-47. “[A] sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines range
- 2 -
is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d
339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006).
A sentence may be unreasonable for either procedural or
substantive reasons. “A sentence may be procedurally unreasonable,
for example, if the district court provides an inadequate statement
of reasons or fails to make a necessary factual finding.” United
States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 434 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126
S. Ct. 2054 (2006). While a district court must consider the
various factors in § 3553(a) and explain its sentence, it need not
“robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection” or
“explicitly discuss every § 3553(a) factor on the record.”
Johnson, 445 F.3d at 345. “This is particularly the case when the
district court imposes a sentence within the applicable Guidelines
range.” Id.In this case, the district court calculated the guideline
range and heard the arguments of counsel that discussed inter alia
Scott’s post-sentencing rehabilitation and attempts to provide
substantial assistance. In addition, the court stated that it
considered Scott’s written memorandum. Although the district court
did not discuss its sentencing deliberations in great detail, the
court specifically cited Booker, Hughes, and § 3553 and imposed a
sentence at the low end of the advisory guideline range. We find
that, contrary to Scott’s assertions, the sentencing transcript
reflects that the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors
- 3 -
and adequately explained its reasoning in selecting the sentence
imposed. Moreover, Scott has failed to overcome the presumption
that his sentence, at the low end of the guideline range, was
reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Scott’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
- 4 -