United States v. Hardnett , 182 F. App'x 205 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-4762
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ALEXANDER JAMES HARDNETT,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-03-212)
    Submitted:   May 10, 2006                     Decided:   May 24, 2006
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William J. Dinkin, DINKIN, PURNELL & JOHNSON, PLLC, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellant. Sara Elizabeth Flannery, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Alexander James Hardnett was convicted after a bench
    trial   of   one   count   of   conspiracy   to   possess   with   intent    to
    distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base and one count of
    distribution of cocaine and aiding and abetting such distribution.
    This court originally affirmed the convictions.              It also found
    there was no reversible error with respect to the sentencing
    enhancements.      However, the sentence was vacated and remanded to
    the district court for resentencing consistent with the rules
    announced in United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005), and
    United States v. Hughes, 
    396 F.3d 374
    , amended on rehearing, 
    401 F.3d 540
     (4th Cir. 2005). On remand, the district court considered
    the sentencing guidelines and the factors under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)
    and   sentenced    Hardnett     to   392   months’   imprisonment    on     the
    conspiracy charge instead of the original life sentence. The court
    preserved the original sentence of 360 months’ imprisonment on the
    distribution charge.       Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), asserting there are no meritorious
    issues for review; however, raising whether the sentence was
    reasonable and in accordance with the rules announced in Booker and
    Hughes.      Hardnett has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising
    several issues.     We affirm the sentence.
    Consistent with the our mandate, the sole issue on appeal
    is whether the district court complied with the requirements of
    - 2 -
    Booker and Hughes in resentencing Hardnett and whether the sentence
    is reasonable.    We find no reversible error with respect to the
    sentence.    While the district court could have been more specific
    in citing its reasons for a variance, we find any error harmless as
    it applies to Hardnett.      See United States v. Hampton, 
    441 F.3d 284
    , 287 (4th Cir. 2006).
    Because   our   remand   was   limited   to   the   issue   of
    resentencing in accordance with Booker and Hughes, the issues
    raised by Hardnett in his pro se supplemental brief are not before
    us.
    Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.     In accordance with
    the requirements of Anders, we have reviewed that portion of the
    record relevant to the resentencing.       This court requires counsel
    inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
    Court of the United States for further review. If the client
    requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes such a petition
    would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave
    to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
    a copy thereof was served on the client.        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
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4762

Citation Numbers: 182 F. App'x 205

Judges: Duncan, Hamilton, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 5/24/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023