UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4170

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRITTANY DAWN THOMAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 19-4264

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RODNEY NEIL HARDIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00303-TDS-22; 1:18-

cr-00303-TDS-7)

Submitted: January 30, 2020 Decided: February 19, 2020
2

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John D. Bryson, WYATT EARLY HARRIS WHEELER, LLP, High Point, North 

Carolina; Renorda E. Pryor, HERRING LAW CENTER, PLLC, Durham, North Carolina, 

for Appellants. Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney, Terry M. Meinecke, 

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Brittany Dawn Thomas and Rodney Neil Hardin

appeal the sentences imposed following their guilty pleas to conspiracy to distribute 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)-(C), 841(c)(2), 843(d)(2), 

846 (2018). The district court sentenced Thomas to 108 months’ imprisonment and Hardin 

to 210 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm. 

We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly 

outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see United States v. King, 673 

F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir. 2012). This review requires consideration of both the procedural 

and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In determining 

procedural reasonableness, we examine, among other factors, whether the district court 

properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties an 

opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2018) sentencing factors, selected a sentence based on facts that were not clearly 

erroneous, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. 

Only after determining that the sentence is procedurally reasonable do we consider 

whether it is substantively reasonable, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the 

circumstances.” Id. at 51. We presume that a sentence within or below a properly 

calculated Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v. Vinson, 852 F.3d 

333, 357 (4th Cir. 2017). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the 
4

sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United 

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

We turn to Thomas’ appeal first. Thomas’ advisory Sentencing Guidelines range 

was 120 to 125 months’ imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum sentence of 120 

months. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. Pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual § 5K1.1 (2018) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2018), the Government moved for a 10%

downward departure in light of Thomas’ substantial assistance. The district court granted 

the Government’s motion and reduced Thomas’ 120-month mandatory minimum by 10%, 

for a total sentence of 108 months’ imprisonment. The court rejected Thomas’ request for 

an additional reduction based on factors unrelated to the substantial assistance. 

Thomas now argues that the district court erred in finding that it did not have the 

authority to consider additional factors when departing from the mandatory minimum. We 

disagree. We have expressly held that “the extent of a § 3553(e) departure from a 

mandatory minimum can be determined . . . only by considering factors that reflect a 

defendant’s substantial assistance.” United States v. Spinks, 770 F.3d 285, 289 (4th Cir. 

2014) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Concha, 861 F.3d 116, 

120 (4th Cir. 2017) (“As to § 5K1.1 departures . . . our case law requires a district court 

determining the extent of such a departure to consider assistance-related factors only.”). 

Accordingly, the district court did not err in refusing to consider additional factors in favor 

of a departure below the mandatory minimum. 

Hardin’s claims that his below-Guidelines-range sentence is unreasonable are 

similarly unconvincing. The district court properly calculated Hardin’s Sentencing 
5

Guidelines’ range, responded to defense counsel’s arguments for a reduced sentence, and 

explained the selected sentence based on Hardin’s individual characteristics and the 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. We conclude therefore that Hardin’s sentence is procedurally 

reasonable. Moreover, Hardin’s sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable, and 

Hardin has not rebutted that presumption. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED