UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4680
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HERMAN TERRELL HAITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00113-NCT-1)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 26, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney,
Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Herman Haith pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to three counts of a seven-count indictment: (1)
possession with intent to distribute 15.6 grams of crack cocaine
(Count Four); (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime (Count Five); and (3) possession of a
firearm after having been convicted of a felony (Count Six).
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(c) (2006); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)
(2006).
The presentence report identified Haith as a career
offender, based on prior convictions, and accordingly
recommended a base offense level of 37 under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 4B1.1 (2008). Because he was
designated a career offender, Haith’s criminal history category
was deemed to be category VI. See id. The recommended advisory
guideline range was 322-387 months. Haith was sentenced to 322
months imprisonment. He appeals, contending that his sentence
is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to
accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006).
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). This review requires consideration of the procedural
and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.; see also
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010).
2
Procedural reasonableness review involves first determining
whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
advisory guideline range, then deciding whether the district
court considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed the arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575; see United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that, while
the “individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy,
. . . it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular
case . . . and [be] adequate to permit meaningful appellate
review.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, this
court reviews the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
examining “the totality of the circumstances to see whether the
sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the
sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in
§ 3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216
(4th Cir. 2010).
We have reviewed the record and find that Haith’s
sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The
district court properly calculated Haith’s sentencing range
under the advisory guidelines, addressed the relevant § 3553(a)
factors (principally, Haith’s upbringing and lack of a male role
model, the seriousness of Haith’s criminal history, as well as
the need for protection of the public and deterrence), and
3
imposed a sentence at the bottom of the sentencing range. Haith
cannot overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded his
within-guidelines sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 347 (2007).
We therefore affirm Haith’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
4