Court Opinion

ID: 9931380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 21:00:52.700661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:31.816603
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4312      Doc: 41         Filed: 02/07/2024     Pg: 1 of 6

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4312

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CHARLES ELLIOT NOBLES,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:17-cr-00019-D-1)

        Submitted: February 1, 2024                                       Decided: February 7, 2024

        Before WYNN, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Joshua S. Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville, South
        Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon,
        Assistant United States Attorney, John L. Gibbons, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4312       Doc: 41        Filed: 02/07/2024      Pg: 2 of 6

        PER CURIAM:

               Charles Elliot Nobles appeals from his upward departure 240-month sentence. 1

        Nobles originally pled guilty to brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and

        discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and was sentenced to 264 months

        in prison. On appeal, we vacated his conviction for discharging a firearm and remanded

        for resentencing on the remaining count. Nobles contends that the sentence imposed on

        remand was unreasonable. We affirm.

               We “review[] all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside

        the [Sentencing] Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”

        United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). We first

        consider “whether the district court committed significant procedural error, such as failing

        to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as

        mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based

        on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United

        States v. Lester, 985 F.3d 377, 384 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). If we find the sentence

        procedurally reasonable, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,

        “examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused

        its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in

        § 3553(a).” United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 176 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation

        marks omitted).

               1
                   The Sentencing Guidelines range was 84 months.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4312      Doc: 41          Filed: 02/07/2024     Pg: 3 of 6

               “Where, as here, the sentence is outside the advisory Guidelines range, we must

        consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision to

        impose such a sentence and with respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing

        range.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 215 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). “A major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than

        a minor one,” United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 2019), and “the farther

        the court diverges from the advisory [G]uideline[s] range, the more compelling the reasons

        for the divergence must be,” id. at 220 (cleaned up). However, we still “must give due

        deference to the district court’s decision that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, on a whole,

        justify the extent of the variance.” Id. at 217 (cleaned up).

               “Sentencing courts remain obligated not to give excessive weight to any relevant

        factor and to impose a sentence which effects a fair and just result in light of the relevant

        facts and law.” United States v. Tucker, 473 F.3d 556, 562 (4th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up).

        A district court imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence when it “focuse[s]

        extensively on a single factor . . . at the expense of a reasoned analysis of other pertinent

        factors.” United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 531 (4th Cir. 2014) (concluding that

        extensive emphasis on defendant’s early criminal history rendered sentence substantively

        unreasonable).

               Nobles first argues that the district court erred in arriving at his departure sentence

        because he was not afforded sufficient notice under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) of the district

        court’s intention to depart upward based upon dismissed and uncharged conduct. Because

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4312         Doc: 41       Filed: 02/07/2024     Pg: 4 of 6

        Nobles did not object to the lack of notice in the district court, review of this issue is for

        plain error. United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007).

               Rule 32(h) requires the sentencing court to give the parties reasonable notice when

        it is considering a departure on a ground not identified as a possible basis for departure

        either in the presentence report (PSR) or in a party’s prehearing submission. Because the

        district court imposed a departure sentence based on the same grounds identified by the

        PSR, 2 the district court was not required to provide Rule 32 notice. Moreover, even if the

        notice was insufficient, Nobles cannot show plain error. Specifically, he has not shown

        that his substantial rights were violated. See id. at 249 (requirements for showing plain

        error). Nobles does not present any potentially different arguments he could have made

        had he been given earlier notice. Moreover, the transcript of the sentencing hearing makes

        clear that both counsel and Nobles expected a departure or variance sentence, and in fact,

        counsel requested a sentence (204 months) that was an upward departure. In addition,

        counsel argued against a large departure by urging a focus on Nobles’ rehabilitation, rather

        than actually contesting Nobles’ responsibility for or the seriousness of the uncharged or

        dismissed counts. Because Nobles does not make a showing that notice would have altered

        his arguments or resulted in a different sentence, he has failed to show plain error in this

        regard. 3

               2
                    The original PSR was updated with an addendum but remained mostly intact.
               3
                Since the district court explicitly indicated that it would have imposed a 240-month
        variance sentence if this Court found its departure sentence to be unreasonable, timely
        (Continued)
                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4312      Doc: 41         Filed: 02/07/2024      Pg: 5 of 6

               Nobles next argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the

        district court did not appropriately explain the large upward departure. However, Nobles’

        argument is somewhat disingenuous as he recognized at sentencing that a Guidelines

        sentence was not appropriate in this case and agreed that he would face a departure or

        variance. In particular, Nobles requested a 204-month sentence, well above the 84-month

        Guidelines sentence. Thus, while the district court imposed a longer sentence than

        requested by Nobles, a large portion of the departure was undisputed.

               Next, the court did, in fact, consider Nobles’ arguments for a lower sentence. The

        court explicitly addressed his cooperation and his restitution payments as mitigating

        circumstances. The court rejected the assertions that Nobles’ sentence should be lowered

        for his infraction-free stint in prison or his difficult childhood. The court recognized

        Nobles’ positive developments over the last five years and balanced those against the

        serious nature of his criminal activity. Given the district court’s extensive discussion, we

        find that Nobles’ sentence was procedurally reasonable.

               Next, Nobles argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district

        court’s admittedly heavy reliance on Nobles’ criminal conduct must be viewed in light of

        the fact that Nobles was the leader of a conspiracy that committed numerous violent armed

        robberies.   This type of behavior indicates a significant need to deter Nobles from

        committing further criminal conduct, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B) and to protect the public,

        issuance of Rule 32 notice is essentially immaterial. See Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S.
        708, 714 (2008) (holding that upward variances do not require Rule 32(h) notice).

                                                     5
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4312      Doc: 41         Filed: 02/07/2024      Pg: 6 of 6

        18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). Moreover, the nature and circumstances of the offense are

        indisputably important concerns in sentencing. See United States v. Friend, 2 F.4th 369,

        381 (4th Cir. 2021) (“[I]t is clearly permissible for a sentencing court to weigh the gravity

        of the offense or the impact a defendant's crimes have had on a community and to vindicate

        that community's interest in justice.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Given that the

        court also explicitly took into consideration countervailing factors, the court did not “give

        excessive weight” to the considerations raised by Nobles’ criminal activity, including his

        count of his conviction and his uncharged and dismissed counts. See Howard, 773 F.3d at

        531 (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the large departure must be viewed in

        the context of the entire statutory sentencing range which begins at 84 months but has an

        upper limit of life in prison. See United States v. Martinez-Armestica, 846 F.3d 436, 447

        (1st Cir. 2017). After consideration of the totality of the circumstances, we find that

        Nobles’ sentence was substantively reasonable.

               Accordingly, we affirm. 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

                                                     6