Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-05258/USCOURTS-ca4-06-05258-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cameron Lee Hinton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-5258

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CAMERON LEE HINTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00130-H)

Submitted: February 13, 2008 Decided: February 26, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas R. Wilson, GREENE & WILSON, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina,

for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne

M. Hayes, Jennifer May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-5258 Doc: 52 Filed: 02/26/2008 Pg: 1 of 5
- 2 -

PER CURIAM: 

Cameron Lee Hinton pled guilty, without the benefit of a

plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924

(2000). On appeal, Hinton challenges the district court’s

imposition of the within-guidelines sentence of 188 months’

imprisonment. We affirm.

This court will affirm a sentence if it “is within the

statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable.” United States v.

Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

2054 (2006). A sentence that falls within the properly calculated

advisory guidelines range is entitled to a presumption of

reasonableness. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th

Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69

(2007) (upholding application of presumption of reasonableness to

within-guidelines sentence). 

Hinton’s sentence was driven by his designation as an

armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18

U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007) (“ACCA”). Hinton does

not challenge this designation. Rather, he claims the district

court committed procedural error by automatically applying the

guidelines enhancements applicable to armed career criminals

without considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)

(West 2000 & Supp. 2007). See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

Appeal: 06-5258 Doc: 52 Filed: 02/26/2008 Pg: 2 of 5
- 3 -

§ 4B1.4(b) (2006). Hinton further claims his sentence is

substantively unreasonable because the enhancement of his sentence

pursuant to the ACCA resulted in excessive punishment that is cruel

and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment. For the reasons

that follow, we affirm. 

Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),

a district court must engage in a multi-step process at sentencing.

The district court must first calculate the appropriate advisory

guidelines range, making any necessary factual findings. Moreland,

437 F.3d at 432. The court should then afford the parties “an

opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate.”

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97 (2007). Then, the

sentencing court should consider the resulting advisory guidelines

range in conjunction with the factors set out in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a), and determine whether those factors support the sentence

requested by either party. Id. 

In Hinton’s case, the district court correctly calculated

the advisory guidelines range of 188-235 months’ imprisonment. At

the sentencing hearing, Hinton’s counsel requested the lowest

sentence possible under existing law, but made no specific argument

regarding any of the § 3553(a) factors. In imposing the low-end of

the applicable guidelines range, the district court noted that it

had considered the relevant factors under § 3553(a). This court

has held that a district court need not “robotically tick through

Appeal: 06-5258 Doc: 52 Filed: 02/26/2008 Pg: 3 of 5
- 4 -

§ 3553(a)’s every subsection” or “explicitly discuss every

§ 3553(a) factor on the record.” Johnson, 445 F.3d at 345. This

is particularly true when the district court imposes a sentence

within the applicable guidelines range. Id.; see Rita, 127 S. Ct.

at 2468. Because the district court imposed a sentence within the

guidelines range, no detailed statement of reasons was required.

We find no procedural error.

We review the substantive reasonableness of Hinton’s

sentence under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall,

128 S. Ct. at 598. Hinton acknowledges we have repeatedly held

that sentencing under the ACCA is neither disproportionate to the

offense nor cruel and unusual punishment, and thus does not violate

the Eighth Amendment. See United States v. Presley, 52 F.3d 64, 68

(4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Etheridge, 932 F.2d 318, 323 (4th

Cir. 1991); United States v. Crittendon, 883 F.2d 326, 331 (4th

Cir. 1989). We find his request for a change to existing law

without merit.

The Supreme Court has long recognized the propriety under

the Eighth Amendment of subjecting recidivists to enhanced

penalties. See Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 284-85 (1980).

“Severe, mandatory penalties may be cruel, but they are not unusual

in the constitutional sense, having been employed in various forms

throughout our Nation’s history.” Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S.

957, 994-95 (1991). 

Appeal: 06-5258 Doc: 52 Filed: 02/26/2008 Pg: 4 of 5
- 5 -

Accordingly, we affirm Hinton’s sentence. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 06-5258 Doc: 52 Filed: 02/26/2008 Pg: 5 of 5