Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 15-4092
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:13-cr-00274-1)
Submitted:
DIAZ,
Circuit
Decided:
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
Willie
district
Slocum,
court
Jr.,
imposed
appeals
after
the
jury
360-month
convicted
sentence
Slocum
of
the
all
Counsel for
committed
Slocums
criminal
sentence
is
reversible
history
substantively
procedural
category
error
and
that
unreasonable.
We
in
determining
the
selected
reject
these
F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).
or
failing
sentencing factors.
to
appropriately
consider
the
relevant
If the sentence is
procedurally
reasonable,
reasonableness,
circumstances.
Slocum
taking
we
into
then
assess
account
the
its
substantive
totality
of
the
of
his
Id.
challenges
the
procedural
reasonableness
Cir.
2011)
(observing
that
procedural
sentencing
errors
Under harmless
on
the
result.
Lynn,
592
F.3d
at
585
(quoting
United States v. Curbelo, 343 F.3d 273, 278 (4th Cir. 2003)).
We accept Slocums contention that the district court erred
in this aspect of its Guidelines computation, 2 but hold that the
Government has demonstrated that the error is harmless.
2
As the
The
Government,
consistent
with
its
position
at
sentencing, suggests in its response brief that the error may be
assumed. Appellees Br. at 6.
total
Guidelines
Manual
offense
level
ch. 5,
pt.
of
A
42.
See
U.S.
(sentencing
Sentencing
table)
(2014).
fails
on
assumed
error
review.
See
United
States
v.
Hargrove, 701 F.3d 156, 163 (4th Cir. 2012) (explaining that
the assumed error harmlessness inquiry is an appellate tool
that we utilize in appropriate circumstances to avoid the empty
formality of an unnecessary remand where it is clear that an
asserted guideline miscalculation did not affect the ultimate
sentence).
Slocums second and final appellate contention is that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the specific
facts and circumstances of his case.
reasonableness
takes
circumstances.
into
account
the
totality
of
the
We presume that
295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
defendant
rebuts
this
presumption
4
by
demonstrating
that
A
the
selected
sentence
is
unreasonable
considered
against
the
18
Id.
circumstances,
figure
in
his
relative
childhood;
and
youth,
the
and
lack
potential
of
good
father
that
Slocum
presumption
of
reasonableness
afforded
Slocums
sentence,
The
the
request
3553(a)
for
sentencing
downward
selected sentence.
factors,
variant
for
rejecting
sentence
and
Slocums
imposing
the
On
motion
dispense
with
we
to
oral
affirm
file
the
criminal
pro
se
argument
supplemental
because
5
judgment.
the
facts
We
deny
brief.
We
and
legal
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED