UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5198

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

NORMAN D. HINTON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

District Judge. (4:06-cr-00088-D-1) 

Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: December 4, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Joseph E. Zeszotarski, Jr., POYNER SPRUILL, LLP, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States 

Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant 

United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Norman D. Hinton pled guilty to assault on a United 

States Government employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 111(a)(1), (b) (2006). The district court departed upward 

pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) 

§ 4A1.3(a), p.s. (2007), and sentenced Hinton to 132 months in 

prison. On appeal, Hinton argues that the district court abused 

its discretion by imposing a departure sentence and that his 

sentence was unreasonable. Finding no merit, we affirm. 

 When determining a sentence, the district court must 

calculate the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider 

it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, , 128 

S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). Appellate review of a sentence, 

“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the 

[g]uidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 591. 

If the district court determines that a sentence outside the 

guidelines range is appropriate, the reviewing court “should 

first look to whether a departure is appropriate based on the 

Guidelines Manual or relevant case law.” United States v. 

Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006). 

 A district court may depart upward from the guidelines 

range under USSG § 4A1.3(a), p.s., when “the defendant’s 

criminal history category substantially under-represents the 

2 
seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history or the 

likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes.” USSG 

§ 4A1.3(a)(1), p.s. “In determining whether an upward departure 

from Criminal History Category VI is warranted, the court should 

consider that the nature of the prior offenses rather than 

simply their number is often more indicative of the seriousness 

of the defendant’s criminal record.” USSG § 4A1.3, p.s., cmt. 

n.2(B). 

 Here, the record supports the district court’s 

conclusion that Hinton’s criminal history category failed to 

adequately reflect the seriousness of his criminal history and 

the likelihood of his recidivism. Hinton had an extensive 

history of violent felonies, multiple unscored convictions not 

included in calculating his criminal history category, a lengthy 

history of lenient sentences followed by recidivism, and an 

“abysmal” performance while on probation. Thus, the district 

court did not err in imposing a departure sentence. 

 We also find that the sentence imposed by the district 

court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The 

district court followed the necessary procedural steps in 

sentencing Hinton, including properly calculating and 

considering the applicable guidelines range, using the 

guidelines to fashion an appropriate departure sentence, 

performing an individualized assessment of the § 3553(a) factors 

3 
4 

to the facts of the case, and stating in open court the reasons 

for the sentence. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 

328 (4th Cir. 2009). Further, the sentence was substantively 

reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Despite 

Hinton’s contentions, the district court took into account 

Hinton’s mental health and the nature and characteristics of the 

offense in fashioning a sentence. The court articulated the 

relevant factors that warranted the departure sentence, 

including: Hinton’s extraordinary criminal history and past 

lenient treatment, the seriousness of assaulting a Government 

employee in the federal courthouse, the need to deter Hinton and 

others from committing similar crimes, the need to protect the 

public in light of Hinton’s likely recidivism, and the need for 

an appropriate sentence for rehabilitation and treatment for his 

cognitive limitations and mental illness. 

 We conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in imposing the 132-month sentence. We therefore 

affirm the district court’s judgment. 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