UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5300
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CECIL STEPHEN HAIRE,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 10-5302
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CECIL STEPHEN HAIRE,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 10-5303
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CECIL STEPHEN HAIRE,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 11-4008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CECIL STEPHEN HAIRE,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00908-SB-1; 2:10-cr-00362-SB-1; 2:10-
cr-00573-SB-1; 2:10-cr-00309-SB-1)
Submitted: July 14, 2011 Decided: July 27, 2011
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Cecil Stephen Haire pled guilty to twenty-three counts
of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006). 1 He
appeals the district court’s grant of the Government’s motion
for upward departure and the resulting sentence of 300 months of
imprisonment. We affirm.
At sentencing, the parties agreed that Haire qualified
for career offender designation, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 4B1.1 (2009). Accordingly, Haire
earned a criminal history category of VI and a total offense
level of thirty-one, for a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months
of imprisonment. USSG ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing table). The
Government moved for an upward departure, arguing that the
Guidelines range underrepresented the seriousness of Haire’s
criminal history and the multiplicity of convictions. Haire
replied that designating him as a career offender provided an
adequate reflection of his extensive criminal behavior, and
therefore an upward departure was not warranted. The district
1
In addition to the thirteen-count indictment from the
District of South Carolina, the Government transferred a four-
count indictment from the Northern District of Florida, a three-
count indictment from the Middle District of Georgia, and a
three-count indictment from the Middle District of Alabama, for
a total of twenty-three counts.
3
court granted the Government’s motion for upward departure and
sentenced Haire to 300 months of imprisonment.
On appeal, Haire contends that in light of his career
offender designation, the district court erred in granting the
Government’s motion for upward departure. Haire argues that
given his personal characteristics and the totality of the
circumstances—his advanced age (fifty-two at sentencing) and the
increase in his recommended Guidelines range based on his career
offender designation—granting the Government’s motion for upward
departure constituted a procedural error. Haire further asserts
the resulting 300-month sentence was greater than necessary to
achieve the purposes of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) and therefore is substantively unreasonable.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007); United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.
2008). The first step in this review requires the court to
ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error. Evans, 526 F.3d at 161. Procedural errors
include “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
4
chosen sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from
the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
In assessing whether the court properly applied the
Guidelines, we review factual findings for clear error and legal
conclusions de novo. United States. v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381,
387 (4th Cir. 2010). Where, as here, a court departs from the
Guidelines range, we “consider whether the sentencing court
acted reasonably both with respect to its decision to impose
such a sentence and with respect to the extent of the divergence
from the sentencing range.” United States v. McNeill, 598 F.3d
161, 166 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted),
aff’d on other grounds, 131 S. Ct. 2218 (2011). Applying an
abuse of discretion standard, we assess the substantive
reasonableness of a sentence under the totality of the
circumstances, giving due deference to the district court’s
departure decision. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v.
Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 366 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied,
__ U.S. , 2011 WL 1671037 (U.S. May 31, 2011) (No. 10-10257).
In summary, then, our task on appellate review is “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).
5
Here, we find neither procedural nor substantive
sentencing error. Both parties concede the court properly
calculated the Guidelines range applicable to Haire, including
designating him as a career offender. Once the court
established the appropriate Guidelines range, the court
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and analyzed the
parties’ arguments as required by established law, and concluded
that a Guidelines sentence was inadequate. We discern no
procedural error in this course of action.
Nor did the district court commit substantive error.
In selecting the sentence, the court focused on three issues:
the magnitude of the offenses underlying Haire’s convictions;
the terror experienced by the bank tellers during his robberies;
and concern that Haire would return to his criminal behavior,
even after serving a sentence within the Guidelines range. 2
Based on these considerations, the district court imposed a 300-
month sentence, sixty-five months greater than the top of the
initially calculated Guidelines range. We conclude that the
district court properly assessed the § 3553(a) factors and the
2
Notably, the court opted not to sentence Haire based on
attributing an additional offense level for each robbery beyond
those anticipated by the Guidelines’ grouping mechanism. Had
the court so sentenced, Haire would have faced a sentence of
between 360 months and life imprisonment.
6
arguments of the parties, and that the extent of the departure
is not unreasonable.
Accordingly, because Haire’s sentence is both
substantively and procedurally reasonable, we affirm Haire’s
convictions and 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
7