UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4638
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SCOTT DUANE HENDRICKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cr-01069-HMH-1)
Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 26, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew Burke
Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Scott Duane Hendricks pled guilty to possession of
ammunition by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006), and
was sentenced to thirty-seven months imprisonment, to be served
consecutively to his undischarged state sentence. Hendricks
noted a timely appeal. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he
states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questions whether Hendricks’ sentence was reasonable.
Specifically, counsel asserts that the district court should
have ordered that Hendricks’ sentence be served concurrent,
rather than consecutive to, his state sentence. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
This court reviews a district court’s sentence for
reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires
appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Id. This court must assess
whether the district court properly calculated the advisory
Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized
explanation must accompany every sentence.”) (emphasis
2
omitted); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.
2009) (same). In addition, this court presumes on appeal that a
sentence within a properly determined advisory Guidelines range
is substantively reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d
178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
We conclude that Hendricks’ sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court
properly calculated Hendricks’ Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,
473 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the district court based its
sentence on its individualized assessment of the facts of the
case. See Carter, 564 F.3d at 328. The district court’s
decision to impose Hendricks’ sentence to run consecutively to
his undischarged state sentence was not an abuse of the court’s
discretion. Hendricks has not rebutted the presumption that his
within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. We therefore find the
sentence reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Hendricks’ conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Hendricks, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Hendricks requests that a petition be filed,
3
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Hendricks.
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