US v. Douglas Holden, No. 15-4207 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4207 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DOUGLAS RAY HOLDEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:14-cr-00207-TMC-1) Submitted: September 28, 2015 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 5, 2015 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kimberly H. Albro, Research and Writing Specialist, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Douglas Ray Holden appeals the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of § 924(c)(1)(A) (2012). violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. On appeal, he challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm. We review a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly deferential outside the Guidelines abuse-of-discretion range[,] standard.” States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Gall under v. a United We first consider whether the district court committed significant procedural error, such as incorrect calculation consideration of the of 18 the Guidelines U.S.C. § 3553(a) range, insufficient (2012) inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed. factors, or United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111-12 (4th Cir. 2015). In record announcing an a sentence, individualized the court assessment facts of the case before it.” based “must on place the on the particular United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The explanation must be adequate “to satisfy the appellate court that the district court has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis decisionmaking authority.” for exercising its own legal United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (brackets and internal quotation marks 2 omitted). “Where the defendant or prosecutor presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence than that set forth in the advisory Guidelines, a district judge should address the party’s arguments and explain why he has rejected those arguments.” marks omitted). Carter, 564 F.3d at 328 (internal quotation The court’s explanation generally must provide “some indication” that it considered both the § 3553(a) factors as they relate to the defendant and the parties’ potentially meritorious sentencing arguments. United States v. Montes- Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006). Holden analogizes to United States v. Patterson, 557 F. App’x 558 (7th district court recognize its mitigation. court’s Cir. 2014) committed discretion (No. 13-1517), procedural to to error consider his argue in that the failing to substance abuse in We find Patterson readily distinguishable, as the statements authority. demonstrate no misunderstanding of its At the outset of the sentencing hearing, the court specifically noted that psychological report in it had preparation considered for a forensic sentencing, and its comments during the hearing reveal that it had both heard and considered court Holden’s also Holden’s argument noted Holden’s relevant history regarding substance and explanation of his sentence. 3 the abuse evaluation. when characteristics The describing during its The specific sentencing claim on which Holden focuses was but a small argument. part of defense counsel’s lengthy sentencing The court addressed counsel’s argument and provided a detailed, individualized explanation for its sentence, grounded expressly in the relevant § 3553(a) factors. Viewed on the whole, the court’s statements were sufficient to indicate that the court considered Holden’s argument regarding his substance abuse when determining his sentence. See Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 380. Having found substantive totality procedural reasonableness of Substantive no the of error, Holden’s circumstances.” reasonableness consider sentence Gall, considers we 552 whether under U.S. “the the “the at 51. sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). In evaluating substantive reasonableness, we must consider “the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.” United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 425 (4th Cir. 2015). A sentence is not unreasonable simply because the district court could have weighed the § 3553(a) factors differently in selecting a sentence. (4th Cir. 2012). United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 290 Greater variances are subject to more intense appellate scrutiny, and “[t]he farther the court diverges from 4 the advisory guideline range, the more compelling the reasons for the divergence must be.” United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “[a] district court’s decision to vary from the Guidelines for an outside-the-heartland case is entitled to the greatest respect.” Lymas, 781 F.3d at 112 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the court imposed a significant upward variance, we conclude the court’s analysis of the § 3553(a) factors and relevant sentencing considerations extent of the variance. case to which compared his sentencing. The justified the The parties now dispute the type of Holden’s offense sufficiently offense only troubling should to be domestic facts of compared, violence but they at offense, Holden’s cases as detailed by the sentencing court, and the sentences to which he could have been subject for his offenses, support the court’s conclusion that Holden’s offense fell outside the heartland of both § 924(c) and domestic violence cases. “extremely broad discretion” accorded In light of the sentencing courts in weighing the § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011), we discern no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed by the court. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with oral argument because 5 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 6
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.
