United States v. Joel Bonner

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4187
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOEL DALLAS BONNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:11-cr-00207-JRS-1)
Submitted: September 20, 2012 Decided: September 26, 2012
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Appellate
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride,
United States Attorney, Jamie L. Mickelson, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joel Dallas Bonner pled guilty to possession of
cocaine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The
district court imposed a sentence of 151 months on the drug
charge and a mandatory minimum 120-month term on the firearm
charge. On appeal, Bonner argues that his sentence is
procedurally unreasonable because the court did not sufficiently
explain the basis for the sentence imposed. We agree that the
sentence is procedurally unreasonable and remand for
resentencing.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
review a sentence for reasonableness, using an abuse of
discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires the court
to ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161
(4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include “failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] 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, 552 U.S. at 51.
Specifically, “the district court must state in open court the
2
particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence [and] set
forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has
considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for
exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court erred because it
failed to explain why it imposed the chosen sentence. See
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 581-82 (4th Cir. 2010);
Carter, 564 F.3d at 328. The court did not address Bonner’s
argument in favor of a sentence below the Guidelines range and
it did not provide any reasons for choosing the sentence
imposed. We cannot presume that the district court simply
adopted the Government’s arguments, nor do we agree with the
Government that the error was harmless. Accordingly, we vacate
Bonner’s sentence and remand for resentencing. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3