US v. Thomas Hinson, No. 13-4011 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. THOMAS RUGGERIO HINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00320-WO-1) Submitted: June 24, 2013 Decided: July 18, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Carlyle Sherrill, III, SHERRILL & CAMERON, PLLC, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Ruggerio Hinson was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) (Counts One and Three) and possession of an firearm, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (2006) (Count Two). unregistered In accordance with a written plea agreement, Hinson pled guilty to Counts One and Three. He was sentenced to 120 months on Count One and seventy-two months, consecutive, on Count Three. appeals, claiming that his sentence is unreasonable. Hinson We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). procedural Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. We first examine the sentence for significant error. Id. We then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the sentence is within the properly calculated Guidelines range, we may presume that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). Hinson first asserts that his sentence is unreasonable because, even though the offenses of conviction were the same, he received a significantly higher sentence on Count One. claim is without merit. conviction, the This In the case of multiple counts of Guidelines require 2 that if the total punishment exceeds the highest statutory maximum, the district court shall impose consecutive terms of imprisonment to the extent necessary Sentencing to achieve Guidelines the Manual total punishment. § 5G1.2(d) U.S. (2011). Total punishment . . . [is] the precise sentence determined by the sentencing range. judge from within the appropriate [G]uidelines United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the Guidelines range was 168-210 months, and the district court determined that a 192-month sentence would be the total punishment. Because Hinson was statutorily subject to a maximum of ten years on each count, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2006), the district court followed the mandated procedure and sentenced him to 120 months on Count One, to be followed by seventy-two months on Count Three, thereby achieving the within-Guidelines total punishment of 192 months. We also reject Hinson s claim that his sentence was substantively unreasonable in light of his mental problems. The district the court provided a comprehensive explanation of chosen sentence, appropriately weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing considered a factors. psychological The court evaluation, stated which that it disclosed Hinson had certain mental health and cognitive issues. had that However, the court determined that other factors, including the serious 3 nature of the instant offenses and Hinson s criminal history, warranted the selected sentence. We conclude that the district court provided an adequate explanation of the sentence, taking into consideration the relevant § 3553(a) factors. Our review of the record establishes that Hinson s arguments on appeal are without merit and that his presumptively reasonable, within-Guidelines substantively reasonable. sentence is procedurally Accordingly, we affirm. and 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.
