UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5246
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA B. HENDRIX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (8:08-cr-00429-GRA-1)
Submitted: April 3, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States
Attorney, William C. Lucius, William J. Watkins, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorneys, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joshua B. Hendrix was sentenced to twelve months and
one day in prison following his guilty plea to passing and
uttering counterfeit United States Federal Reserve notes in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 (West Supp. 2008). Hendrix timely
appealed and filed a motion to expedite. We affirm the judgment
of the district court and deny the motion to expedite as moot.
Hendrix’s sole argument on appeal is that the district
court committed procedural error by failing to entertain his
request to consider a sentence of probation. By ignoring his
request, Hendrix reasons that the court did not fulfill its
obligation to treat the sentencing guidelines as advisory, as
required by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Our
review of the record reveals the district court specifically
considered the advisory nature of the guidelines and thus did
not commit procedural error. See United States v. Pauley, 511
F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, we find the sentence
imposed was reasonable. See Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473-74; Gall v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We deny the motion to expedite as moot. We dispense
with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3