United States v. Hardnett

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4762
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALEXANDER JAMES HARDNETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (CR-03-212)
Submitted: May 10, 2006 Decided: May 24, 2006
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William J. Dinkin, DINKIN, PURNELL & JOHNSON, PLLC, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Sara Elizabeth Flannery, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alexander James Hardnett was convicted after a bench
trial of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base and one count of
distribution of cocaine and aiding and abetting such distribution.
This court originally affirmed the convictions. It also found
there was no reversible error with respect to the sentencing
enhancements. However, the sentence was vacated and remanded to
the district court for resentencing consistent with the rules
announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and
United States v. Hughes, 396 F.3d 374, amended on rehearing, 401
F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005). On remand, the district court considered
the sentencing guidelines and the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
and sentenced Hardnett to 392 months’ imprisonment on the
conspiracy charge instead of the original life sentence. The court
preserved the original sentence of 360 months’ imprisonment on the
distribution charge. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious
issues for review; however, raising whether the sentence was
reasonable and in accordance with the rules announced in Booker and
Hughes. Hardnett has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising
several issues. We affirm the sentence.
Consistent with the our mandate, the sole issue on appeal
is whether the district court complied with the requirements of
- 2 -
Booker and Hughes in resentencing Hardnett and whether the sentence
is reasonable. We find no reversible error with respect to the
sentence. While the district court could have been more specific
in citing its reasons for a variance, we find any error harmless as
it applies to Hardnett. See United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d
284, 287 (4th Cir. 2006).
Because our remand was limited to the issue of
resentencing in accordance with Booker and Hughes, the issues
raised by Hardnett in his pro se supplemental brief are not before
us.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. In accordance with
the requirements of Anders, we have reviewed that portion of the
record relevant to the resentencing. This court requires counsel
inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If the client
requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave
to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on the client. 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
- 3 -