United States v. Sidney Baker

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4412
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SIDNEY ARNAZ BAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00389-TDS-1)
Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: September 28, 2012
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Stephen T. Inman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sidney Arnaz Baker appeals his eight-month sentence
following a guilty plea to theft of Government funds, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (2006). On appeal, Baker argues
that the district court committed procedural error by failing to
specifically address his argument regarding the need to avoid
unwarranted sentencing disparities pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(6). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Baker preserved his claim of error “[b]y drawing
arguments from § 3553 for a sentence different than the one
ultimately imposed.” United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578
(4th Cir. 2010). Therefore, any error must lead to reversal,
“unless we conclude that the error was harmless.” Id. at 581.
A district court commits procedural sentencing error by “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.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
“Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above,
below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on the
record an individualized assessment based on the particular
facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
“Where the defendant or prosecutor presents
nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence than that
set forth in the advisory Guidelines, a district judge should
address the party’s arguments and explain why he has rejected
those arguments.” Id. at 328 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). “[A] district court’s explanation of its
sentence need not be lengthy, but the court must offer some
‘individualized assessment’ justifying the sentence imposed and
rejection of arguments for a higher or lower sentence based on
§ 3553.” Lynn, 592 F.3d at 584 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50).
However, “[t]o establish the reasonableness of a sentence, a
district court need not explicitly discuss every § 3553(a)
factor on the record.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339,
345 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
We conclude that the district court did not
procedurally err in failing to address Baker’s argument
regarding the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.
Section 3553(a)(6) requires a sentencing court to consider “the
need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants
with similar records who have been found guilty of similar
conduct.” In support of his argument for a below-Guidelines
sentence of probation, Baker cited examples of two other
defendants convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 641 who had received
3
sentences of probation. ∗ However, Baker failed to address the
defendants’ criminal histories and the circumstances of their
criminal conduct.
The district court did not procedurally err in
imposing the eight-month below-Guidelines sentence by failing to
specifically address his sentencing disparity argument, as the
court thoroughly explained its reasons for the sentence imposed.
The court placed an individualized assessment on the record
supporting the stated sentence, addressing the seriousness of
Baker’s crime, the length of Baker’s criminal conduct, and the
significant loss attributable to Baker, as well as Baker’s
health, age, education, and community involvement.
Accordingly, we deny as moot Baker’s motion to
expedite decision and 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
∗
Contrary to Baker’s assertions, one of the defendants had,
in fact, received a thirty-day intermittent sentence of
imprisonment, in addition to probation.
4