Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 11-4516
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cr-01311-HMH-1)
Argued:
Before TRAXLER,
Judges.
Chief
Judge,
Decided:
and
DIAZ
and
THACKER,
Circuit
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Lee Horton, II appeals his sentence for making a
false statement in a passport application in violation of 18
U.S.C.
1542.
Specifically,
Horton
challenges
the
district
courts decision to vary from the guidelines and impose a 120month prison sentence, the statutory maximum for the offense.
We affirm.
I.
A.
Horton and his wife divorced in February 2009.
The divorce
decree granted his wife custody of their two minor children and
Horton
visitation
final,
Horton
application
daughter.
for
rights.
falsified
the
The
his
purpose
same
wifes
of
day
the
signature
obtaining
divorce
on
passport
became
passport
for
his
to
Disney
World
in
Florida.
Instead,
he
took
her
to
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
1542.
Hortons
presentence
report
U.S.S.G.
guideline
2L2.2,
applicable
U.S.S.G. 2J1.2.
to
required
cross-reference
International
Parental
to
the
Kidnapping,
combined
with
Hortons
category
II
criminal
history,
charge
to
which
Horton
pleaded
guilty,
was
120
months.
The
district
court
granted
the
motion
because
the
(6) the
and
(7)
lifelong
expert
testimony
established
trauma
and
prolonged
need
that
she
would
counseling.
In
law
(evidenced
by
his
frequent
criminal
violations
and
promote
sentenced
prison,
range.
deterrence
Horton
four
to
times
for
the
the
this
type
statutory
high
end
of
crime.
maximum
of
his
of
The
120
court
months
applicable
in
guideline
II.
Horton contends that the district court failed to provide a
sufficient
justification
for
its
substantial
upward
variance
involve
conduct
related
to
international
parental
thirty-six
months.
Thus,
in
4
Hortons
view,
the
district
Appellants Br. at 7.
deferential
abuse-of-discretion
standard.
United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation omitted).
United States
out-of-guidelines
procedural
and
sentence
substantive
must
be
reviewed
reasonableness.
Gall
for
v.
both
United
On
the
other
hand,
[a]
sentence
may
be
substantively
or
rejects
policies
Sentencing Commission.
articulated
by
Congress
or
the
Id.
variance.
Gall,
552
U.S.
at
50-51.
[C]ommon
sense
Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
We
conclude
discretion
in
extraordinary
above,
that
the
district
imposing
the
statutory
facts
support
found
by
sentence
the
court
did
maximum
district
significantly
not
abuse
sentence.
court,
in
its
The
summarized
excess
of
the
punitive
violated.
(1979).
passport
of
two
or
more
statutes
that
the
defendant
has
Congress
clearly
contemplated
that
the
We agree with
Congresss policy
offenses
at
issue
here,
which
it
is
not
our
place
to
III.
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED