United States v. Hayes, 4th Cir. (2011)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4333
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISIAH MARQUALE HAYES, a/k/a Isaiah Marquale Hayes,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00137-JAB-1)
Submitted:
March 30, 2011
Decided:
April 8, 2011
Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas
N.
Cochran,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United
States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Isiah Marquale Hayes pled guilty to possession of a
firearm
by
convicted
felon,
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
922(g)(1) (2006), and the district court sentenced him to a

within-Guidelines sentence of 115 months.
Counsel filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

stating
there
are
no
meritorious
issues
for
appeal
questioning whether Hayess sentence was unduly harsh.
but
Hayes
was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he

has not done so.
parties
to
file
After our initial review, we ordered the

supplemental
briefs
addressing
whether
the
district court adequately stated its reasons for imposing the

chosen
sentence
constitutes
and,
harmless
if
not,
whether
error.
its
Having
failure
fully
to
do
considered
so
the
arguments raised by Hayes and the Government, we affirm.

Because counsel preserved any procedural challenge to
the sentence by arguing for a below-Guidelines sentence, our
See United States v.
review is for an abuse of discretion.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578, 581, 583-84 (4th Cir. 2010).
district
court
procedurally
erred
and
thus
If the
abused
its
discretion, we must reverse unless the error is harmless.
Id.
at 581, 585.
In
sentence,
determining
this
court
the
procedural
considers
2
whether
reasonableness
the
district
of
court
properly calculated the defendants advisory 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.
(2007).
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
Regardless of whether the district court imposes an
above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on

the record an individualized assessment based on the particular
facts of the case before it.
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Where, as here, the district court imposed a within-Guidelines
sentence, the explanation may be less extensive, while still
United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 639
individualized.
(4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2128 (2010).
However,
that explanation must be sufficient to allow for meaningful

appellate review such that the appellate court need not guess
at the district courts rationale.
Carter, 564 F.3d at 329-30
(internal quotation marks omitted).

Although
the
district
court
properly
calculated
the
Guidelines range, allowed counsel to argue in mitigation, and

afforded Hayes an opportunity to allocute, we conclude that the
district court abused its discretion in failing to place on the
record an individualized assessment of the 3553(a) factors
relating to Hayes.
to
state
their
Sentencing courts are statutorily required
reasons
for
imposing
3
particular
sentence.
United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010).
In this case, although the district court briefly stated that it
had considered the statutory sentencing factors, the court erred
by
failing
to
indicate
the
basis
for
rejecting
arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence.
counsels
See Lynn, 592 F.3d
at 584 ([T]he court must offer some individualized assessment

justifying the sentence imposed and rejection of arguments for a
higher or lower sentence based upon 3553.) (quoting Gall, 552
U.S. at 50); Carter, 564 F.3d at 328-30.
Having concluded that the district court procedurally
erred, we next consider whether the error is harmless.
context,
the
demonstrates
[G]overnment
that
the
may
error
avoid
did
not
reversal
have
only
In this
if
substantial
it
and
injurious effect or influence on the result[,] such that we

can
[]
say
with
fair
assurance[]
that
the
district
courts
explicit consideration of [the defendants] arguments would not

have affected the sentence imposed.
(internal
quotation
marks
and
Boulware, 604 F.3d at 838
ellipses
omitted).
Relevant
factors in this analysis include whether the record leaves any

doubt
that
the
district
court
considered
the
defendants
arguments in light of the relevant 3553 factors and any other

information
submitted,
id.
at
839,
and
the
defendants arguments for a different sentence.

Lynn, 592 F.3d at 585.
4
strength
of
the
Id. at 839-40;
With these standards in mind, we conclude that the

Government met its burden.
indicated
that
it
had
In this case, the district court
performed
its
duties
to
consider
the
relevant 3553 factors in light of the arguments and evidence

presented
by
Hayess
counsel.
Moreover,
the
arguments
for
leniency Hayes advanced at sentencing were less than compelling,

and Hayes produced no evidence that the effects on others from
[his] imprisonment would be unusually severe.
F.3d at 840.
Boulware, 604
Thus, any procedural error is harmless and does
not require reversal.
Finally, with regard to the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, Hayes has failed to rebut our

presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable.
See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district courts judgment.
This court
requires that counsel inform Hayes, in writing, of the right to

petition
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
for
further
review.
If Hayes requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel

may
move
in
representation.
this
and
legal
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Hayes.

facts
court
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
5
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

United States v. Hayes, 4th Cir. (2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Hayes, 4th Cir. (2011)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Hayes, 4th Cir. (2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

March 30, 2011

Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

922(g)(1) (2006), and the district court sentenced him to a

Counsel filed a brief

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

questioning whether Hayess sentence was unduly harsh.

was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he

After our initial review, we ordered the

district court adequately stated its reasons for imposing the

arguments raised by Hayes and the Government, we affirm.

review is for an abuse of discretion.

discretion, we must reverse unless the error is harmless.

properly calculated the defendants advisory Guidelines range,

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

Regardless of whether the district court imposes an

above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2128 (2010).

that explanation must be sufficient to allow for meaningful

Carter, 564 F.3d at 329-30

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Guidelines range, allowed counsel to argue in mitigation, and

Sentencing courts are statutorily required

arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence.

See Lynn, 592 F.3d

at 584 ([T]he court must offer some individualized assessment

injurious effect or influence on the result[,] such that we

explicit consideration of [the defendants] arguments would not

Boulware, 604 F.3d at 838

factors in this analysis include whether the record leaves any

arguments in light of the relevant 3553 factors and any other

defendants arguments for a different sentence.

With these standards in mind, we conclude that the

In this case, the district court

relevant 3553 factors in light of the arguments and evidence

leniency Hayes advanced at sentencing were less than compelling,

Thus, any procedural error is harmless and does

not require reversal.

Finally, with regard to the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence, Hayes has failed to rebut our

requires that counsel inform Hayes, in writing, of the right to

If Hayes requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel

Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Hayes.

We dispense with oral argument because the

You might also like