UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4198
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARTHUR C. ROGERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:10-cr-00632-HMH-1)
Submitted: July 25, 2011 Decided: August 11, 2011
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, William J. Watkins, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arthur C. Rodgers pled guilty to use of a means of
identification of another person in connection with a felony in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) (2006). On appeal, he
alleges that his forty-two-month variance sentence was error.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). As we have explained, “no matter what provides the
basis for a deviation from the Guidelines range − we review the
resulting sentence only for reasonableness.” United States v.
Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 164 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing Gall, 552 U.S.
at 50).
In assessing a sentencing court’s decision to depart
from a defendant’s Sentencing 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 another ground, 131 S. Ct.
2218 (2011). We will find a sentence to be unreasonable if the
sentencing “court provides an inadequate statement of reasons or
relies on improper factors in imposing a sentence outside the
properly calculated advisory sentencing range.” United
2
States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 (4th Cir.
2007).
Here, the district court correctly calculated Rogers’
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range as 24-30 months of
imprisonment. After listening to the arguments of counsel, to
the defendant himself, and addressing some of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, the court imposed an upward variance
sentence of forty-two months. The court, which was faced with a
recalcitrant career criminal with an extensive criminal history,
adequately explained its reasons for departing upward. In these
circumstances we do not find that the sentence was unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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
3