United States v. Pauley ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4834
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM ROCKY PAULEY, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:05-cr-00178-1)
Submitted: April 9, 2007 Decided: May 8, 2007
Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John G. Hackney, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, W. Chad Noel, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
After pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute five or
more kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
846 (2000), and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(I), (h) (2000), William
“Rocky” Pauley, Jr., was sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, Pauley argues that the district court misunderstood the
scope of its discretion under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005).
Prior to announcing Pauley’s sentence, the district court
made the following statements on the record:
I do not have the authority to show mercy and impose any
sentence that I want. I have to meet a very rigid and
very inflexible standard in order to impose any sentence
other than a sentence that is within the Sentencing
Guidelines. . . .
Now, if you were to interpret the Supreme Court’s opinion
in Booker, the remedial opinion . . . then certainly a
sentence less than 210 months would certainly be
justified in this case as reasonable . . . .
[But] I do not believe under the standard set by the
Fourth Circuit that a sentence below this could be
justified as reasonable. That is to say, I want to make
clear on the record so you have it for appeal or any
other purpose that I feel constrained by the guidelines.
I feel very little difference exists between the advisory
guidelines, so-called advisory guidelines as interpreted
by our circuit and other circuits and the mandatory
guidelines that were in effect prior to the decision in
Booker. . . .
I have to make it clear . . . that the guidelines
control. They’re still there. They’re no different than
they were before.
- 2 -
(J.A. at 79-81.)
After reviewing this record, it is obvious the district court
misunderstood our precedents and its role in sentencing. We
therefore agree that the district court sentenced Pauley while
operating under the erroneous belief that its discretion to
sentence Pauley outside the guideline range was “almost
nonexistent.” Under our post-Booker cases, a district court may
impose a sentence below the guidelines range if, after assessing
the factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), it
believes such a sentence is “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary,” to achieve the goals of § 3553(a). See United States
v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Although we do not accord district
courts a free hand with respect to departures and variances, see
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 434 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006), we also do not foreclose a sentence
outside the properly calculated guidelines range if accompanied by
an explanation that makes the final sentence a reasonable one.
Because the record indicates that the district court
misunderstood our precedent, we vacate its judgment and remand for
resentencing consistent with this opinion.* We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
Nothing in this opinion should be read to suggest that we
have formed any view regarding the appropriate outcome of Pauley’s
resentencing.
- 3 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 4 -