US v. Randall Robertson, No. 11-4764 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4764 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RANDALL H. ROBERTSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:10-cr-00263-DCN-1) Submitted: January 26, 2012 Decided: February 10, 2012 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cameron J. Blazer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Nettles, United States Attorney, M. Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Randall H. Robertson pled guilty to possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (West Supp. 2011). was 87-108 Although Robertson s Guidelines sentencing range months, Robertson sought noncustodial, supervisory sentence. a variance to a The district court rejected Robertson s request for a noncustodial sentence, but agreed that a variant sentence was appropriate. It accordingly imposed an active prison term of forty-two months imprisonment. Robertson challenges the reasonableness of this sentence on appeal. We affirm. We review a sentence abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). for reasonableness under an Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. First, we assess whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) ( [A]n individualized United (same). States explanation v. Carter, must 564 accompany F.3d 325, every 330 (4th sentence. ); Cir. 2009) An extensive explanation is not required as long as the appellate court is satisfied that [the district court] has 2 considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority. United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). Robertson asserts that the district court failed to give a court. particularized explanation for the sentence in open Even assuming, however, that the court s explanation during the sentencing hearing did not satisfy Carter and Lynn, we agree with the Government s assertion that any procedural error is harmless. The district court issued a sentencing order placing on the record a thorough explanation of the reasons for its chosen sentence. interactions sentencing The sentencing order, as well as the court s with the hearing, parties reflects the and Robertson district court s with Robertson s particular circumstances. by Robertson s arguments to the contrary. during the familiarity We are unpersuaded Thus, any procedural error occasioned by the court s articulation of the basis for the chosen sentence in a written order rather than in open court did not prejudice any of Robertson s substantial rights. Turning to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we may presume that a sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable; however, we may not presume that a sentence outside the Guidelines range is unreasonable. 3 Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see United States v. Tucker, 473 F.3d 556, 560-62 (4th Cir. 2007) (reviewing reasonableness). Guidelines court to court s variance sentence this acted impose court must reasonably such a consider both sentence whether v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 the with to its with and respect respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing range. States for Rather, in reviewing a sentence outside the range, sentencing decision district F.3d 118, 123 United (4th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The substantive reasonableness of the sentence into entails taking 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court explained its reasons both for imposing a below-Guidelines sentence and for declining to grant Robertson s request for a noncustodial sentence. the district court s explanation was not While extensive, it meaningfully referenced the § 3553(a) factors and provided an adequate that basis the for court s appellate variant review. sentence Especially worked considering significantly to Robertson s advantage, we have no difficulty concluding that the sentence imposed by the district reasonable. 4 court is substantively 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 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.
