UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5108

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TYRONE ERNELL HINTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:09-cr-00110-FL-1)

Submitted: May 8, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer 

P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Ernell Hinton pled guilty, without a plea 

agreement, to one count of bank robbery, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006). The district court sentenced Hinton to 

188 months in prison, the top of the advisory Guidelines range. 

In reaching this sentence, the district court took into 

consideration several factors, including the need to deter such 

criminal conduct, to protect the public, to promote respect for 

the law, and to get Hinton mental health treatment. Hinton 

timely appeals, asserting that the district court committed 

plain error by basing his sentence on his need for mental health 

treatment. For the following reasons, we affirm.

As Hinton acknowledges, we review his claim for plain 

error because he raises it for the first time on appeal. United 

States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 580 (4th Cir. 2010). To establish 

plain error, Hinton must show that the court’s sentence was 

based on error, that was plain, and that affected his 

substantial rights. United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 

295 (4th Cir. 2012). Even if Hinton makes this showing, we will 

not correct the error unless “it seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

At sentencing, a court may discuss a defendant’s 

opportunities for rehabilitation or treatment programs during 
3

incarceration. Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2392 

(2011). However, the court may not impose or increase the 

length of a sentence for the purpose of ensuring that the 

defendant receive rehabilitative services. Id. at 2393.

Even assuming that the district court improperly 

considered Hinton’s need for psychological treatment as a basis 

for his sentence, we find that Hinton has not shown that the 

error affected his substantial rights.

Generally, for an error to affect a defendant’s 

substantial rights it must be prejudicial, meaning “there must 

be a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome

. . . .” United States v. Marcus, 130 S. Ct. 2159, 2164 (2010). 

In the sentencing context, an error affects substantial rights 

only if the defendant can show that the sentence imposed was 

longer than the sentence he would have received without the 

error. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 548 (4th Cir. 

2005); see also United States v. Angle, 254 F.3d 514, 518 (4th 

Cir. 2001) (en banc) (explaining that sentencing error affects 

substantial rights if the actual sentence is “longer than that 

to which [the defendant] would otherwise be subject”); see also

United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 272 (4th Cir. 2010) 

(holding defendant failed to show lack of a more detailed 

explanation had a prejudicial impact on the sentence imposed).
4

Here, the district court provided several legitimate

grounds for sentencing Hinton at the top of the Guidelines 

range, and Hinton fails to show that there is a reasonable 

probability that the court would have imposed a lower sentence 

had it not improperly considered his need for psychological 

treatment. 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