UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4713
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL JOSEPH EASON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:07-cr-00262-FL-1)
Submitted: May 5, 2009 Decided: July 1, 2009
Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter H. Paramore, III, WALTER H. PARAMORE, III, P.C.,
Jacksonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B.
Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Joseph Eason appeals the 120-month departure
sentence imposed by the district court following his plea of
guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2000). Eason asserts that the
district court erred by imposing a departure sentence without
first affording him adequate notice that it planned to depart
upward pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 4A1.3, p.s.
Rule 32(h) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
requires that the sentencing court give the parties reasonable
notice that it is considering a departure on a ground not
identified as a possible basis for departure either in the
presentence report or in a party’s prehearing submission. Fed.
R. Crim. P. 32(h). In its comments at sentencing and its
written order explaining the upward departure, the district
court relied on USSG § 5K2.21, p.s., as well as § 4A1.3, p.s.
The presentence report specifically identified USSG § 5K2.21 as
a possible ground for upward departure. We are satisfied that
Eason was not prejudiced because the district court cited
§ 4A1.3 for principles echoed in its analysis under USSG
§ 5K2.21 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordingly, we conclude that
any error by the district court in failing to give such notice
2
was harmless. Eason lodges no further claim of error with
respect to his sentence.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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