United States v. Simmons

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4888
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES HAROLD JAMIE SIMMONS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00327-CMC)
Submitted: February 8, 2008 Decided: March 11, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States
Attorney, Anne Hunter Young, Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Harold Simmons, Jr., pled guilty to attempting to
obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (2000). The district court
sentenced Simmons to fifteen months’ imprisonment. On appeal,
Simmons contends the district court erred by treating the advisory
Guideline sentence as presumptively reasonable, failing to consider
all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in determining an
appropriate sentence, and imposing an unreasonable sentence.
Finding no error, we affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed by the district court
as long as it is within the statutorily prescribed range and is
reasonable. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th
Cir. 2005). Reasonableness review focuses on whether the district
court abused its discretion. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d
468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). A sentence may be unreasonable for
procedural or substantive reasons. Id. “An error of law or fact
can render a sentence unreasonable.” United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). We
review a district court’s factual findings for clear error and its
legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284,
287 (4th Cir. 2006). Assuming the sentence contains no significant
procedural errors, we may presume a sentence falling within the
Guidelines range to be reasonable. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473.
- 2 -
When sentencing a defendant, the district court must:
(1) properly calculate the Guideline range; (2) allow the parties
to argue for the sentence they deem appropriate and determine
whether the § 3553(a) factors support the sentences requested by
the parties; and (3) explain its reasons for selecting a sentence.
Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. The sentencing court may not presume that
the applicable Guidelines range is reasonable, but should explain
any deviation from that range. Id.While a district court must consider the § 3553(a)
factors and explain its sentence, it need not explicitly reference
§ 3553 or discuss every factor on the record, particularly when the
court imposes a sentence within the Guideline range. United
States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). One reason
that a sentence within an advisory range may be presumed to be
reasonable is that the most salient § 3553(a) factors are already
incorporated into the Guideline determinations. Id. at 342-43; see
also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2467 (2007) (“where
judge and Commission both determine that” a Guideline sentence is
appropriate, “that sentence likely reflects the § 3553(a)
factors”). A district court’s consideration of pertinent factors
may also be implicit in its ultimate ruling. See United States v.
Johnson, 138 F.3d 115, 119 (4th Cir. 1998); United States v. Davis,
53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995).
- 3 -
The district court’s explanation should provide some
indication that it considered the § 3553(a) factors as to the
defendant and the potentially meritorious arguments raised by the
parties at sentencing. Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2468. “[W]hen a judge
decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing
so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Id.“Circumstances may well make clear that the judge rests his
decision upon the Commission’s own reasoning that the Guidelines
sentence is a proper sentence (in terms of § 3553(a) and other
congressional mandates) in the typical case, and that the judge has
found that the case before him is typical.” Id.
Simmons challenges the district court’s consideration of
the Guideline range and the § 3553(a) factors, as well as the
sentence that it ultimately imposed. We have reviewed the record
and conclude the district court adequately considered the advisory
nature of the Guideline range and the § 3553(a) factors as applied
to Simmons’ case, and reasonably imposed a sentence that was at the
bottom of the Guideline range.
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
- 4 -