United States v. Harding

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4591

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VEOTIS HARDING, a/k/a Vito,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:02-cr-00191-BO)

Submitted: April 6, 2007 Decided: May 21, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Camille M. Davidson, FULLER & BARNES, LLP, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States
Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer May-Parker, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Veotis Harding pled guilty without a plea agreement to

all thirty-five counts of an indictment charging him with

conspiracy, racketeering, and money laundering and was sentenced to

forty years imprisonment. We affirmed his convictions, vacated the

sentences, and remanded for resentencing consistent with United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and United States v. Hughes,

401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). See United States v. Harding,

No. 03-4794 (4th Cir. Aug. 24, 2005) (unpublished). On remand, the

district court resentenced Harding to 330 months imprisonment.

Harding again appeals, contending that his sentence is unreasonable.

After the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, a

sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the

Sentencing Guidelines. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. In determining a

sentence post-Booker, however, sentencing courts are still required

to calculate and consider the guideline range prescribed thereby as

well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000

& Supp. 2006). If the sentence imposed is within the properly

calculated guideline range, it is presumptively reasonable. United

States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,___

U.S.___, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).

Harding argues that his sentence is unreasonably long

because he was unaware of the “stacking” provisions until after he

entered his guilty plea and received his presentence report.

- 2 -
Although the statutory maximum for counts one through five is five

years imprisonment and for counts nineteen through thirty-five is

20 years imprisonment, “[i]n the case of multiple counts of

conviction, the guidelines instruct that if the total punishment

mandated by the guidelines exceeds the highest statutory maximum,

the district court must impose consecutive terms of imprisonment to

the extent necessary to achieve the total punishment.” United

States v. White, 238 F.3d 537, 543 (4th Cir. 2001); see U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.2(d) (2002). Therefore, the

district court appropriately applied the “stacking” rule in

calculating Harding’s guidelines range.

Here, the district court appropriately treated the

guidelines as advisory and properly calculated and considered the

guidelines range as well as the relevant factors under § 3553(a).

Harding’s sentence is well below the range of life imprisonment;

moreover, the sentence imposed on remand represents a significant

reduction from his original sentence. We conclude that the

sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm Harding’s 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

- 3 -