US v. Richard Hayhurst, No. 10-4352 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4352 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD HAYHURST, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cr-00022-REM-1) Submitted: October 29, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit November 15, 2010 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katy J. Cimino, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Betsy C. Jividen, United States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a plea agreement, Richard Hayhurst pled guilty to violation possession of 18 of U.S.C. firearms by §§ 922(g)(1), a convicted 924(a)(2) felon, (2006). in The district court sentenced Hayhurst within the advisory guidelines range to twenty months imprisonment. Hayhurst appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by denying his request for a downwardly variant sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We review the district court s sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range, under a deferential abuse-of-discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). this review, we first determine whether the standard. In conducting district court committed any significant procedural error, such as 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. Id. at 51. When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented, applying the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the specific circumstances of the case before it. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal 2 quotation state marks in open and emphasis court the omitted). particular The court reasons must also supporting its chosen sentence and set forth enough to satisfy this Court that it reasoned has considered basis authority. for the parties exercising [its] arguments own legal and has a decisionmaking Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the sentence is free from procedural error, we then review it for substantive reasonableness. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Substantive reasonableness review entails taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Even if this Court would have imposed a different sentence, this fact alone is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court. Id. at 474 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Hayhurst does not dispute that his guidelines range was properly calculated. He argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court refused to downwardly vary from the guidelines range. We imposed apply within reasonable. the an appellate properly presumption calculated that guidelines a sentence range is United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) 3 (upholding appellate presumption of reasonableness for withinguidelines sentence). downward variance, In rejecting Hayhurst s request for a the district court considered the § 3553 sentencing factors and determined that they were best served by the imposition of a within-guidelines sentence. Furthermore, the court emphasized that a variance was not warranted based on Hayhurst s criminal history and the particular circumstances of this case, namely that Hayhurst took the opportunity to steal one of the weapons in question from his neighbors home when they had called upon him for help during a family emergency. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that Hayhurst s sentence is reasonable. For these reasons, we affirm Hayhurst s sentence. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
