US v. Charles Hardee, No. 10-5286 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5286 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CHARLES A. HARDEE, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Hardee to 108 months of imprisonment. court sentenced 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 of a sentence for discretion standard. reasonableness, applying an abuse 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). examine the sentence for significant In so doing, we procedural error, including failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider selecting a the [18 sentence U.S.C.] based on § 3553(a) clearly [(2006)] erroneous failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. U.S. at 51. factors, facts, or Gall, 552 Here, as Hardee requested a sentence outside the advisory Guidelines range and the district court again sentenced 2 him within that discretion. (4th Cir. range, we review this issue for abuse of See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578-79 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 Guidelines range. (4th Cir. 2009). sentence above, below, or within the United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 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. citation omitted). at 328 (internal quotation marks and 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. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in 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.
