UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5286
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHARLES A. HARDEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:08-cr-01172-TLW-1)
Submitted: August 26, 2011 Decided: September 13, 2011
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles A. Hardee pleaded guilty to possession of
child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)
(West 2006 & Supp. 2011), and the district court sentenced
Hardee to 108 months of imprisonment. In a prior appeal, we
affirmed Hardee’s conviction but vacated and remanded to allow
the district court to more fully explain the reasons for the
chosen sentence. On resentencing, the district court again
sentenced Hardee to 108 months of imprisonment and Hardee again
appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Hardee argues that the district court again
failed to adequately explain its reasons for the sentence. We
review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In so doing, we
examine the sentence for “significant procedural error,”
including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors,
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall, 552
U.S. at 51. Here, as Hardee requested a sentence outside the
advisory Guidelines range and the district court again sentenced
2
him within that range, we review this issue for abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578-79
(4th Cir. 2010) (claim for failure to adequately explain
sentence preserved if defendant argues for a sentence other than
that imposed).
A district court must conduct an “individualized
assessment” of the particular facts of every sentence, whether
the court imposes a sentence above, below, or within the
Guidelines range. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330
(4th Cir. 2009). In addition, “[w]here [the parties] present[]
nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a . . . sentence [outside the
advisory Guidelines range,] . . . a district judge should
address the party’s arguments and explain why he has rejected
those arguments.” Id. at 328 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). We have reviewed the record and conclude
that the district court complied with these obligations. The
court thoroughly explained its reasons for imposing a sentence
within the advisory Guidelines range, for concluding that a
sentence at the high end of that range was appropriate, and for
rejecting each of Hardee’s sentencing arguments.
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
3
before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4