US v. Horatio Everhart, No. 09-4409 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4409 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. HORATIO EVERHART, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00186-NCT-2) Submitted: March 5, 2010 Decided: March 26, 2010 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS North Carolina, for Appellant. Assistant United States Attorney, for Appellee. & STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro, Terry Michael Meinecke, Greensboro, North Carolina, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Horatio Everhart pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). the quantity of drugs involved, Everhart was Due to subject to a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence; however, because Everhart qualified for the safety valve provision in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)-(5) (2006), the district court sentenced Everhart to 108 months imprisonment, advisory guidelines range. and on appeal, he has which his filed Anders within Everhart s Everhart timely noted his appeal, a California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In fell brief, brief pursuant to Anders v. Finding no error, we affirm. Everhart sentence was substantively unreasonable. suggests that his According to Everhart, district courts, when sentencing crack cocaine offenders, should calculate an alternative guidelines range that eliminates the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine offenses and offenses involving courts, an equivalent Everhart amount argues, could of powder then cocaine. enhance an District individual defendant s sentence based on the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Although Everhart was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so. 2 (2006) and the particular circumstances surrounding the defendant s conduct. This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district court under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). appellate court must first In reviewing a sentence, the ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or failing to adequately explain the chosen Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. sentence. errors, the appellate court then reasonableness of the sentence. If there are no procedural considers the substantive Id. When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented and state in open court the particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th (internal Cir. omitted). 2009) This requires quotation the district marks court and to citations provide a sufficient explanation of the sentence to satisfy this court that the district court has a reasoned basis for its decision and has considered the parties arguments. Id. When reviewing a sentence on appeal, this court presumes a sentence within the 3 properly calculated guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). In his brief, Everhart States, 129 S. Ct. 840 (2009). relies on Spears v. United Spears, though, does not dictate a particular ratio district courts must adopt in calculating a defendant s advisory guidelines range. Id. at 844. Spears court s merely recognizes a district Rather, authority to substitute its own crack cocaine-to-powder cocaine ratio if it determines that unwarranted. the disparity embodied in the Guidelines is The district court here, in the exercise of its discretion, explicitly rejected the argument that the disparity was unwarranted. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court s determination of Everhart s sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Everhart s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Everhart, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Everhart requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Everhart. 4 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
