UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4199
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AARON LEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:11-cr-02109-RMG-1)
Submitted: September 11, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ann Briks Walsh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William Nettles, United States
Attorney, M. Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Lee appeals his 120-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to possession of child pornography, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (West Supp. 2013). Lee
claims that the district court erred in determining that two
prior state sentences should be counted separately under U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(a)(2) (2012). Even
assuming Lee is correct, we conclude that any error was harmless
and affirm.
When assessing a challenge to the district court’s
application of the Guidelines, we review factual findings for
clear error and legal conclusions de novo. United States v.
Alvarado Perez, 609 F.3d 609, 612 (4th Cir. 2010). Upon a
finding of error, the Government may avoid reversal of a
defendant’s sentence if it demonstrates that the error did not
impact the sentence imposed. United States v. Boulware, 604
F.3d 832, 838 (4th Cir. 2010). We must find that “the district
court would have reached the same result even if it had decided
the guidelines issue the other way” and “that the sentence would
be reasonable even if the guidelines issue had been decided in
the defendant’s favor.” See United States v. Savillon-Matute,
636 F.3d 119, 123 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
2
Assuming here that the district court incorrectly
determined that Lee’s prior state offenses were separated by an
intervening arrest, we conclude that the error was harmless
because Lee was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of ten years
for his federal offense. Accordingly, we conclude with
confidence that Lee would have received the same sentence
despite any error in the calculation of his Guidelines range.
Lee concedes as much, but argues that a miscalculation
of his Criminal History Category may not be harmless because it
could negatively impact his future sentencing or his
classification and privileges within the Bureau of Prisons. We
conclude, however, that Lee’s speculation regarding future
events and consequences is insufficient to preclude a finding of
harmless error.
Accordingly, we affirm Lee’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3