US v. Joel Bonner, No. 12-4187 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4187 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOEL DALLAS BONNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:11-cr-00207-JRS-1) Submitted: September 20, 2012 Decided: September 26, 2012 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Appellate Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Jamie L. Mickelson, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joel Dallas Bonner pled guilty to possession cocaine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. of The district court imposed a sentence of 151 months on the drug charge and a mandatory minimum 120-month term on the firearm charge. On appeal, Bonner argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the court did not sufficiently explain the basis for the sentence imposed. We agree that the sentence and is procedurally unreasonable remand for resentencing. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review a sentence for reasonableness, discretion standard of review. 38, 51 (2007). to ensure Cir. calculate that the 2008). (or an abuse of Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. The first step in this review requires the court procedural error. (4th using district court committed no significant United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 Procedural improperly errors calculating) include the failing Guidelines to range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] ยง 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence - including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Specifically, the district court must state in open court the 2 particular forth reasons enough to supporting satisfy the its chosen appellate sentence court [and] set [it] has that considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the district court erred because it failed to explain why it imposed the chosen sentence. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 581-82 (4th Cir. 2010); Carter, 564 F.3d at 328. The court did not address Bonner s argument in favor of a sentence below the Guidelines range and it did not imposed. We provide any cannot reasons presume that for the choosing the sentence district court simply adopted the Government s arguments, nor do we agree with the Government that the error was harmless. Accordingly, we vacate Bonner s sentence and remand for resentencing. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 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.
