US v. Joshua Hendrix, No. 08-5246 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5246 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSHUA B. HENDRIX, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (8:08-cr-00429-GRA-1) Submitted: April 3, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, William C. Lucius, William J. Watkins, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joshua B. Hendrix was sentenced to twelve months and one day uttering in prison following counterfeit United his guilty States plea Federal to Reserve violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 472 (West Supp. 2008). appealed and filed a motion to expedite. passing and notes in Hendrix timely We affirm the judgment of the district court and deny the motion to expedite as moot. Hendrix s sole argument on appeal is that the district court committed procedural error by failing to entertain his request to consider a sentence of probation. By ignoring his request, not Hendrix reasons that the court did fulfill its obligation to treat the sentencing guidelines as advisory, as required by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Our review of the record reveals the district court specifically considered the advisory nature of the guidelines and thus did See United States v. Pauley, 511 not commit procedural error. F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). imposed was reasonable. Moreover, we find the sentence See Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473-74; Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. with We deny the motion to expedite as moot. oral argument as the facts 2 and legal We dispense contentions are adequately 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.
