US v. Kevin Hickman, No. 12-4173 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4173 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN ANTHONY HICKMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00261-WDQ-8) Submitted: November 16, 2012 Decided: November 29, 2012 Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francis A. Maryland, Attorney, Baltimore, Pommett, III, NATHANSON & POMMETT, P.C., Baltimore, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States James Wallner, Assistant United States Attorney, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Anthony Hickman was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, and possession with intent to distribute heroin, and sentenced to concurrent imprisonment. vacated the sentences of life and 360 months He appealed, and this court affirmed in part, conspiracy conviction and corresponding life sentence, and remanded with directions to enter judgment on a lesser included offense resentence accordingly. of a 100-gram that the reconsider his distribute count, district sentence and unreasonable sentence. and to On remand, the district court sentenced Hickman to concurrent 360-month sentences. contending conspiracy court Hickman now appeals, erred on the possession that the district in failing with court to intent to imposed an Finding no error, we affirm. Hickman first argues that the district court erred in failing to reconsider his 360-month sentence on the possession with intent to distribute count. We review a district court s interpretation of this court s mandate de novo. v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 283 (4th Cir. 2012). United States If we find error in the district court s interpretation, we will reverse, unless the error was harmless. 52(a). See id. at 284; see also Fed. R. Crim. P. The district court plainly reconsidered the sentence on this charge when it separately calculated the Guidelines range, 2 separately considered defense counsel s arguments, separately announced the sentence on this count. and Furthermore, any error with respect to Hickman s 360-month sentence on Count I is harmless, because such error has no effect on Hickman s actual term of confinement, in light of his concurrent 360-month sentence on Count VI. Hickman sentences. next the reasonableness of his This court reviews a sentence applying an abuse of discretion standard. (2007). challenges The Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 court first reviews for significant procedural errors, including whether the district court failed to calculate or improperly Guidelines as calculated the Guidelines mandatory, failed to range, consider treated the § the 3553(a) factors, or failed to adequately explain its chosen sentence. Id. The district court must make an individualized assessment, wherein it applies the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the facts of the case before it. 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). United States v. Carter, The district court should also address any nonfrivolous arguments for an out-of-Guidelines sentence and explain why it rejected those arguments. Id. the it court finds a sentence procedurally reasonable, If then examines substantive reasonableness, considering the totality of the circumstances including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 3 If the sentence is within the Guidelines reasonableness. range, the court may adopt a presumption of Id. Hickman s aggregate sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Despite Hickman s contentions to the contrary, the district court correctly applied the § 3553(a) factors, and arguments adequately in explained support a of its downward rejection variance. of Hickman s Moreover, the court was not required to conduct a departure analysis before imposing a variance sentence. See United States v. Diosdado- Star, 630 F.3d 359, 365-66 (4th Cir.), cert. denied 131 S. Ct. 2946 (2011). Furthermore, circumstances including considering Hickman s the criminal totality of history, the his offenses seriousness, and the district court s modest variance on Count VI and applying a presumption of reasonableness as to the sentence on Count I, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing concurrent 360-month sentences. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this 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.
