UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4591
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VEOTIS HARDING, a/k/a Vito,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:02-cr-00191-BO)
Submitted: April 6, 2007 Decided: May 21, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Camille M. Davidson, FULLER & BARNES, LLP, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States
Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer May-Parker, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Veotis Harding pled guilty without a plea agreement to
all thirty-five counts of an indictment charging him with
conspiracy, racketeering, and money laundering and was sentenced to
forty years imprisonment. We affirmed his convictions, vacated the
sentences, and remanded for resentencing consistent with United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and United States v. Hughes,
401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). See United States v. Harding,
No. 03-4794 (4th Cir. Aug. 24, 2005) (unpublished). On remand, the
district court resentenced Harding to 330 months imprisonment.
Harding again appeals, contending that his sentence is unreasonable.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, a
sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
Sentencing Guidelines. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. In determining a
sentence post-Booker, however, sentencing courts are still required
to calculate and consider the guideline range prescribed thereby as
well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000
& Supp. 2006). If the sentence imposed is within the properly
calculated guideline range, it is presumptively reasonable. United
States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,___
U.S.___, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
Harding argues that his sentence is unreasonably long
because he was unaware of the “stacking” provisions until after he
entered his guilty plea and received his presentence report.
- 2 -
Although the statutory maximum for counts one through five is five
years imprisonment and for counts nineteen through thirty-five is
20 years imprisonment, “[i]n the case of multiple counts of
conviction, the guidelines instruct that if the total punishment
mandated by the guidelines exceeds the highest statutory maximum,
the district court must impose consecutive terms of imprisonment to
the extent necessary to achieve the total punishment.” United
States v. White, 238 F.3d 537, 543 (4th Cir. 2001); see U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.2(d) (2002). Therefore, the
district court appropriately applied the “stacking” rule in
calculating Harding’s guidelines range.
Here, the district court appropriately treated the
guidelines as advisory and properly calculated and considered the
guidelines range as well as the relevant factors under § 3553(a).
Harding’s sentence is well below the range of life imprisonment;
moreover, the sentence imposed on remand represents a significant
reduction from his original sentence. We conclude that the
sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Harding’s sentence. 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 -