UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5099
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
REGINALD HATCHER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-02-22-F)
Submitted: January 31, 2007 Decided: March 13, 2007
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant.
George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Hatcher appeals the sentence imposed following
remand for resentencing. In our prior decision, we affirmed
Hatcher’s convictions of one count of conspiracy to launder money
and one count of money laundering, but vacated Hatcher’s sentence
and remanded for resentencing pursuant to United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005). United States v. Hatcher, 132 F. App’x 468
(4th Cir. 2005).
On remand, the district court utilized the same
Guidelines* calculations that were applied at Hatcher’s initial
sentencing — a total offense level of twenty-two, criminal history
category I, and a sentencing range of forty-one to fifty-one
months. At the resentencing hearing, Hatcher did not object to the
Guidelines calculations. The district court sentenced Hatcher to
forty-one months’ imprisonment. Hatcher timely appealed. We
affirm.
On appeal, Hatcher asserts that his sentence violates his
Sixth Amendment rights because it is based on facts not found by
the jury or admitted by him, and that the district court failed to
comply with this court’s mandate remanding for resentencing. He
relies on the following language from the court’s opinion:
Here, the jury found Appellants guilty of money
laundering, to which the guidelines assign a base Offense
Level of 8, see United States Sentencing Guidelines
*
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2002).
- 2 -
Manual § 2S1.1(a)(2) (2002). The guidelines also
prescribe a two-level enhancement because Appellants were
convicted of violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956. See U.S.S.G.
§ 2S1.1(b)(2)(B). Accordingly, the jury verdicts
authorized an Offense Level of 10. As each Appellant was
assigned a Criminal History Category of I, the maximum
authorized by the jury verdicts was 12 months’
imprisonment. However, as noted above, . . . Hatcher and
Kirk were sentenced to 41 months’ imprisonment. The
facts that gave rise to the enhancements resulting in
these sentences were found by the district court, not by
the jury. Therefore, under Hughes, the district court
committed plain error and affected the Appellants’
substantial rights when it imposed these sentences.
Hatcher, 132 F. App’x at 481. He argues that this part of the
court’s opinion established the Guidelines offense level and
sentencing range, and the district court was not permitted to
deviate from this range in resentencing him. Hatcher does not
challenge the accuracy of the district court’s factual findings and
resultant Guidelines determinations.
Contrary to Hatcher’s assertions, our opinion did not
prescribe the sentencing range to be used on remand. Rather, we
only referenced specific offense levels in the context of
describing the Booker error. Our specific guidance to the district
court was stated as follows: “We therefore exercise our discretion
to notice the error and remand . . . for resentencing consistent
with the instructions set forth in [United States v. ]Hughes[, 401
F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005)].” Hatcher, 132 F. App’x at 482.
The district court fully complied with and followed this mandate.
After Booker, a district court is no longer bound by the
range prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines. Hughes, 401 F.3d at
- 3 -
546. However, in imposing a sentence post-Booker, courts still
must calculate the applicable Guidelines range after making the
appropriate findings of fact and consider the range in conjunction
with other relevant factors under the Guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). United States v. Moreland, 437
F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006).
This court will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it “is within the
statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable.” Id. at 433
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] sentence
within the proper advisory Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir.
2006).
The district court explicitly treated the Guidelines as
advisory, and sentenced Hatcher only after considering the
Sentencing Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors. Although the
district court did not recite facts to support each § 3553(a)
factor, the court need not “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s
every subsection” or “explicitly discuss every § 3553(a) factor on
the record.” Johnson, 445 F.3d at 345. Thus, the Sixth Amendment
error that occurred at the first sentencing was cured by Hatcher’s
resentencing under an advisory Guidelines scheme. We also conclude
that Hatcher’s sentence is reasonable.
We therefore affirm Hatcher’s sentence. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 4 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 5 -