US v. Christopher Ledbetter, No. 10-4817 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4817 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER DARRELL LEDBETTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:10-cr-00134-HMH-1) Submitted: February 18, 2011 Decided: April 11, 2011 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Appellant Christopher Darrell Ledbetter challenges the procedural district reasonableness court following of his the sentence guilty plea imposed to one by the count of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) and 924(e) (2006). For the reasons stated below, we affirm his sentence. This applying States, an 552 court abuse U.S. reviews of 38, a sentence for discretion standard. 51 see (2007); Gall also Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). reasonableness, United v. United States v. Our review requires appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district Guidelines court properly range, calculated considered the 18 the defendant s U.S.C. advisory § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). This explanation need not be elaborate or lengthy, id. at 330, 2 and the district court s explanation will withstand appellate scrutiny as long this court has a basis from which to determine that [the district court] has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis decisionmaking authority. for exercising [its] own legal Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). At district his court sentencing to impose hearing, his Ledbetter 120-month concurrently to a pending state sentence. asked sentence to the run The district court then imposed the sentence to be served consecutively to any sentence the comment. On appeal, Ledbetter only questions the sufficiency of the district defendant court s is presently explanation serving for without imposing the further sentence consecutively. Assuming, without deciding, that the district court s explanation of the sentence was inadequate, we conclude that any error was harmless. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 268 (2005) (noting that appellate courts may apply the plain error and harmless error doctrines in determining whether resentencing is required); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (stating that an appellate court may disregard any error that does not affect substantial rights). A district court may impose a consecutive sentence when multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant at the same time or when the defendant . . . is 3 already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment . . . . 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (2006). Here, the district court imposed a sentence any consecutive serving. The record to in sentence this case, [Ledbetter] however, is now establishes Ledbetter was not then serving a sentence as of the date the district court imposed judgment; instead, he was only being held in state custody for some pending charges. (J.A. 39). Because those charges had not yet been adjudicated, Ledbetter was not yet serving an undischarged term of imprisonment. Thus, the district court s pronouncement of a consecutive sentence was of no effect and did not infringe Ledbetter s rights. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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.
