UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4941
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM FELTON HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00083-F-1)
Submitted: April 5, 2010 Decided: April 21, 2010
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William Felton Harris pled guilty to possession of a
firearm and ammunition by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2006). He was sentenced to forty-six months’
imprisonment on September 17, 2008. United States v. Harris,
No. 5:08-cr-00083-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 17, 2008). Harris timely
appealed his sentence, arguing that it was procedurally
unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately
explain its sentence as required by United States v. Carter, 564
F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We agreed, vacated Harris’s
sentence, and remanded for resentencing to allow the district
court to conduct the required individualized assessment and
place its findings on the record. United States v. Harris, 337
Fed. App’x 371 (4th Cir. July 10, 2009) (No. 08-4945).
On remand, the district court again sentenced Harris
to forty-six months’ imprisonment. Harris filed a timely
appeal. On appeal, Harris contends that the sentencing court
again committed procedural error because it failed to explain
why Harris’s family ties did not merit a lower sentence. We
affirm.
“Regardless of whether the sentence imposed is inside
or outside the [g]uidelines range, the appellate court must
review the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Appellate courts
2
are charged with reviewing sentences for reasonableness,
considering both the procedural and substantive reasonableness
of a sentence. Id.
In determining procedural reasonableness, we first
assess whether the district court properly calculated the
defendant’s advisory guidelines range. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
We then determine whether the district court failed to consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and any arguments
presented by the parties, treated the guidelines as mandatory,
selected a sentence based on “clearly erroneous facts,” or
failed to sufficiently explain the selected sentence. Id.;
United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
“The district court ‘must make an individualized assessment[,]’
. . . apply[ing] the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the specific
circumstances of the case before it.” Carter, 564 F.3d at 328
(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50). Additionally, a district judge
must detail in open court the reasons behind the chosen
sentence, “‘set[ting] forth enough to satisfy the appellate
court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a
reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking
authority.’” Id. (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
356 (2007)).
Finally, we review the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence, “taking into account the ‘totality of the
3
circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
[g]uidelines range.’” Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473 (quoting Gall,
552 U.S. at 51).
After reviewing the record, we find that the district
court adequately explained its chosen sentence, and that
Harris’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively
reasonable. Accordingly, we 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
4