Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 10-5000
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cr-00083-F-1)
Submitted:
NIEMEYER,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
PER CURIAM:
Aldranard
Jarmel
Bennett
appeals
his
conviction
and
18
U.S.C.A.
922(g)(1),
924
(West
2000
&
Supp.
2011).
Bennett
requested
sentence
below
his
reversing
unless
the
error
was
harmless.
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010)
(By drawing arguments from 3553 for a sentence different than
the
one
ultimately
imposed,
an
aggrieved
party
sufficiently
review
requires
consideration
of
both
whether
the
Guidelines
district
range,
court
considered
2
the
Gall
properly
the
calculated
3553(a)
the
factors,
analyzed
any
arguments
presented
by
the
parties,
and
every
sentence.)
(emphasis
in
original);
United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding
that
the
individualized
rationale
adequate
tailored
to
to
permit
assessment
the
particular
meaningful
necessarily
issue
case
comprehensive,
must
at
appellate
provide
hand
and
review)
[be]
(internal
opinion,
the
legal
decisionmaking
authority.
United
States
v.
Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).
elaborate
The
district
or
lengthy[,]"
courts
explanation
however.
Carter,
"need
564
F.3d
not
at
be
330.
F.3d 625, 639 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2128
(2010).
while
still
individualized,
explanation.
Id.
United States v.
Morace, 594 F.3d 340, 346 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks
and
sentence
citation
within
reasonable.
omitted).
properly
However,
calculated
we
presume
Guidelines
that
range
a
is
2007).
We reject Bennetts argument that his sentence should
be vacated because the district court did not explain why it
rejected his health-related argument.
the
entirety
of
Bennetts
sentencing
proceeding
to
determine
from
the
record
that
the
Unlike in Lynn, it is
district
court
considered
See United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 272 (4th Cir.
2010)
(finding
no
procedural
error
where
the
district
court
imposed
explicitly
the
sentence
recognizing
requested
that
the
by
the
last
defendant,
criterion
while
was
not
reversible
indication
that
error
[it]
where
the
district
court
considered
the
defendants
gave
no
nonfrivolous
admittedly,
it
would
have
been
preferable
sentence
particular
correctional
facilities[.]
court
and
indicated
that
institution
it
was
because
recommending
of
its
medical
considered
the
[defendant's]
arguments
in
court
considered
counsels
arguments
for
below-
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED