US v. Terry Headen, No. 08-4878 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4878 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY HEADEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00139-1) Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 18, 2009 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David O. Schles, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID SCHLES, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Miller Bushong, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terry Headen appeals the district court s judgment imposing concurrent sentences of 240 months imprisonment after Headen pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006) and conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (West 2006 & Supp. 2008). We find the district court did not err in imposing a four-level increase in the total offense level as to the money laundering conviction under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.1(a) (2008) for Headen s leadership role. Manual We find that the district court appropriately considered the advisory nature of the guidelines range and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), independently calculated a sentencing range, See Gall v. United States, and imposed a reasonable sentence. 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). err by declining to authority to do so. 682 (4th Cir. depart downward after Nor did the court recognizing its See United States v. Quinn, 369 F.3d 666, 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.