%PDF-1.3
%%
%%Page: 1 1
4 0 obj
<<
/Length 5 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
115.326 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(PUBLISHED) Tj
/F1 19 Tf 84.2 Tz
-114.766 -39.4 Td
1.9 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
66.136 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
(FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-66.696 -18 Td
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(U) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
85.668 -18 Td
(Plaintiff-Appellee,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-3.168 -18 Td
(v.) Tj
135.57 0 Td
(No. 11-4818) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-36.45 -1.3 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -16.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARRY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUIS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARGROVE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
70.344 -18 Td
(Defendant-Appellant.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
111.276 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-142.878 -25.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj
-31.86 -13 Td
(for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.) Tj
56.904 -13 Td
(Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge.) Tj
32.562 -13 Td
(\(7:10-cr-00135-BO-1\)) Tj
-11.136 -25.9 Td
(Argued: October 24, 2012) Tj
-7.326 -26.1 Td
(Decided: December 12, 2012) Tj
-70.866 -25.9 Td
(Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Judges.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-7.02 -50.6 Td
.95 Tw
(Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Shedd wrote the opin-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(ion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Agee joined.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
120.996 -43.7 Td
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
-120.996 -25.9 Td
.45 Tw
(ARGUED:) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( James Edward Todd, Jr., OFFICE OF THE FED-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.6 Tw
(ERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.18 Tw
(Appellant. Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.71 Tw
(STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.47 Tw
(lee. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
(ON BRIEF:) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -83.35 m 183.8 -83.35 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -125.9 m 186.6 -91.2 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -177.6 m 186.6 -142.9 l s
.9 w 0 -184.55 m 183.3 -184.55 l s
.5 w 0 -352.15 m 300 -352.15 l s
.5 w 0 -415.75 m 300 -415.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
2762
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 4 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 2 2
12 0 obj
<<
/Length 13 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
8.16 Tw
0 Tc
(Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
12.12 Tw
(Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.1 Tw
(DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.9 Tw
(G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker,) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.47 Tw
(Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.71 Tw
(STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(lee.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
123.666 -46 Td
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-123.666 -27.2 Td
(SHEDD, Circuit Judge:) Tj
12 -27.2 Td
2.75 Tw
(Based on his involvement in dogfighting activity, Harry) Tj
-12 -13.7 Td
1.58 Tw
(Louis Hargrove was convicted of violating one provision of) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.13 Tw
(the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.13 Tw
(2156. He now appeals his) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(60-month sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.) Tj
148.002 -27.1 Td
(I) Tj
-136.002 -27.1 Td
.61 Tw
(The government describes Hargrove as being a "legend" in) Tj
-12 -13.7 Td
2.21 Tw
(the dogfighting community. By Hargrove's own admission,) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.07 Tw
(he has been involved in dogfighting activity for over four dec-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.43 Tw
(ades, and at one time he had approximately 250 fighting dogs) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.81 Tw
(on his property. Information in the record shows that off-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.78 Tw
(spring from one of Hargrove's fighting dogs, Midnight Cow-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.43 Tw
(boy, sold for large sums of money across the country because) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.57 Tw
(of its aggressiveness and propensity for fighting. Hargrove) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
3.21 Tw
(advertised his dogs in various dogfighting-related publica-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.43 Tw
(tions, and he is famous in the dogfighting industry for his) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.94 Tw
(dogfighting, his breeding activities, his training regimen, and) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
0 Tw
(his ability to produce aggressive fighting dogs. His prior crim-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.08 Tw
(inal history includes a 1983 Georgia felony dogfighting con-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.22 Tw
(viction, a 1993 North Carolina animal fighting misdemeanor) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.96 Tw
(conviction, and a 2001 North Carolina animal cruelty misde-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(meanor conviction.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -116.55 m 300 -116.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(2) Tj
86.4223 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARGROVE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
2925
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 12 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 3 3
15 0 obj
<<
/Length 16 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
3.08 Tw
0 Tc
(The investigation underlying this case began with com-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
3.57 Tw
(plaints that Hargrove was involved in dogfighting on his) Tj
0 -13 Td
.5 Tw
(property in Duplin County, North Carolina. During the inves-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.7 Tw
(tigation Hargrove sold an American Pit Bull Terrier to an) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.14 Tw
(undercover informant. The sale was consummated after Har-) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.16 Tw
(grove demonstrated the dog's prowess by fighting it with) Tj
0 -13 Td
.2 Tw
(another dog on his property. Pursuant to a search warrant, law) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.42 Tw
(enforcement officers seized 34 additional dogs which were) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(eventually euthanized because of poor health, aggressive ten-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.22 Tw
(dencies, or both. Additionally, the officers found multiple) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.91 Tw
(tools and indicia of the dogfighting trade throughout Har-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(grove's property, including: a fighting pit that was covered in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(a significant amount of blood; "break sticks" which are used) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(to break the bite hold of a dog during a fight; modified jumper) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.74 Tw
(cables that were used to electrocute dogs; a large debris pit) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(that contained, among other things, dog carcasses; a blood-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(covered treadmill with wooden sides; a springpole, which is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.54 Tw
(used to build up a dog's leg and jaw muscles; an old "jenny,") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(which is used to increase a dog's stamina by having the dog) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(run continuously for extended periods of time while chasing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(a bait; large quantities of animal medicines; and hundreds of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(canine pedigrees.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.33 Tw
(The government charged Hargrove in one count with vio-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.97 Tw
(lating ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.97 Tw
(2156\(b\), which makes it unlawful "for any person to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.42 Tw
(knowingly sell, buy, possess, train, transport, deliver, or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(receive any animal for purposes of having the animal partici-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(pate in an animal fighting venture." The statutory maximum) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(for this offense is 60 months. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 18 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.11 Tw
(49. Without a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.17 Tw
(plea agreement, Hargrove pled guilty to the charge. Before) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.06 Tw
(sentencing, a probation officer calculated Hargrove's advisory) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(guideline range to be 10-16 months. Objecting to this calcula-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(tion, Hargrove argued that the range should be 0-6 months.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.58 Tw
(While not taking issue with the probation officer's calcula-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(tion, the government filed a motion for an upward departure) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(and/or a variance. As grounds for the upward departure, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.05 Tw
(government listed extraordinary cruelty to animals, extreme) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(3) Tj
-208.0777 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARGROVE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
3644
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 15 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 4 4
18 0 obj
<<
/Length 19 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.77 Tw
0 Tc
(conduct, and inadequacy of Hargrove's criminal history cate-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.33 Tw
(gory. As grounds for the upward variance, the government) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.71 Tw
(noted the violent nature of dogfighting, Hargrove's long-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.18 Tw
(standing involvement in dogfighting activities, the need for) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.54 Tw
(deterrence, the need to protect the public, and the need to) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.91 Tw
(avoid sentencing disparities. In support of the motion, the) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.1 Tw
(government submitted a memorandum that included docu-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.07 Tw
(mentary and photo exhibits which detailed the condition of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(the dogs seized from Hargrove's property, a video clip of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.45 Tw
(demonstration fight Hargrove arranged for the undercover) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.12 Tw
(informant, and photos taken during the execution of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(search warrant on Hargrove's property.) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.28 Tw
(At the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the district) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.33 Tw
(court noted the probation officer's recommended advisory) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(guideline range of 10-16 months and then heard Hargrove's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(objections. Again, Hargrove contended that the range should) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(be 0-6 months. After hearing from Hargrove, the court dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(cussed with the probation officer the possibility of additional) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(increases to the offense level calculation for more than mini-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.44 Tw
(mal planning, vulnerable victims, and role in the offense. The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.02 Tw
(court then informed the parties that it intended to rely on these) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(enhancements to increase the recommended offense level.) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.16 Tw
(The district court then invited the government to present) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(evidence in support of its motion for an upward departure or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(a variance. Among other things, the government presented the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.21 Tw
(testimony of Special Agent Mark Barnhart, who described the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(tools of the dogfighting trade that trainers use to increase a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.95 Tw
(dog's aggressiveness and stamina, recounted the results from) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.12 Tw
(the search of Hargrove's property, and described the injuries) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.37 Tw
(that dogs often sustain during fights. The government then) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(repeated its request for an upward departure or, alternatively,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.71 Tw
(for an upward variance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.71 Tw
(3553\(a\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.12 Tw
(Regarding the variance request, the government pointed to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(violent nature of dogfighting and Hargrove's long-standing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(involvement in breeding and training dogs for fighting. The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(government also noted that Hargrove had not been deterred) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(4) Tj
86.4223 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARGROVE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
19 0 obj
3566
endobj
17 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 18 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 5 5
21 0 obj
<<
/Length 22 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.7 Tw
0 Tc
(by his prior dogfighting-related convictions, and it stated that) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.25 Tw
(he deserved a longer sentence than other federal dogfighting) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.81 Tw
(convicts. The government requested a departure or variance) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(up to the statutory maximum term of 60 months.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.96 Tw
(The district court announced that it was prepared to sen-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.41 Tw
(tence Hargrove both under the guidelines and with an upward) Tj
0 -13 Td
.05 Tw
(departure and upward variance. The court expressed its dissat-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(isfaction with the "irrationality" of the dogfighting guideline) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(provision, noting with respect to the guideline calculation of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.97 Tw
(0-6 months that Hargrove advocated: "I would say that other) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(than the criminal dog fighters in America, every other person) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(in America would be shocked beyond belief that you could do) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(what [Hargrove] did and come out with a federal sentence of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(zero to six months. . . . No one could defend that. No judges.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(No legislators. No president." J.A. 135.) Tj
12 -26 Td
5.52 Tw
(The court then heard from Hargrove's counsel, who) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.81 Tw
(emphasized that Hargrove was a highly decorated military) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(veteran who had been changed by his experience in Vietnam.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.06 Tw
(Counsel also noted that in cases cited by the government) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.38 Tw
(involving similar activities, the defendants received imprison-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(ment sentences of between 12 and 24 months. Finally, coun-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(sel emphasized that Hargrove had been fully compliant with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.61 Tw
(his release conditions following his arrest. Hargrove then) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(addressed the court, stating that he thought his involvement in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(dogfighting was wrong and that he had been backing away) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(from it for years.) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.14 Tw
(The court then announced that its guidelines calculations) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(led to a sentencing range of 41-51 months, and it stated that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(it would sentence Hargrove to 51 months if imposing sen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(tence under that range. However, the court further stated that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.04 Tw
(an upward departure and an upward variance to 60 months) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.52 Tw
(were appropriate. In response to a query from the govern-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.56 Tw
(ment, the court stated: "If I had sustained the Defendant's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.88 Tw
(objections and come up with a Guideline range that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(Defendant did not object to, I would still have imposed both) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(5) Tj
-208.0777 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARGROVE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
22 0 obj
3401
endobj
20 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 21 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 6 6
24 0 obj
<<
/Length 25 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.27 Tw
0 Tc
(the upward departure to 60 months and an upward variance to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(60 months." J.A. at 147.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.6 Td
.11 Tw
(In a written statement setting forth the reasons for imposing) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(a sentence outside the guideline range, the court explained:) Tj
22 -26.6 Td
.81 Tw
([T]he court found under [18 U.S.C. ] 3553 that the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.46 Tw
(nature of the offense was extreme cruelty, the [his-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(tory] and characteristics of the defendant were such) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.83 Tw
(that he lack[ed] any remorse or sympathy for his) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.33 Tw
(actions and that he had been engaged undeterred in) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.3 Tw
(this behavior for over 40 years showing also a lack) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.52 Tw
(of respect for the law. The sentence is a [deterrence]) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.33 Tw
(for future crimes and diminishes unwarranted sen-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(tencing [disparities] among similarly situated defen-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(dants.) Tj
-22 -26.6 Td
(J.A. 176.) Tj
146.004 -26.6 Td
(II) Tj
-134.004 -26.5 Td
.63 Tw
("Federal sentencing law requires the district judge in every) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.1 Tw
(case to impose `a sentence sufficient, but not greater than nec-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.55 Tw
(essary, to comply with' the purposes of federal sentencing, in) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.63 Tw
(light of the Guidelines and other ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.63 Tw
(3553\(a\) factors." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Freeman) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.51 Tw
(v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 2692 \(2011\) \(quoting 18) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.58 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.58 Tw
(3553\(a\)\). Under the current sentencing regime, "dis-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.14 Tw
(trict courts may impose sentences within statutory limits) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(based on appropriate consideration of all of the factors listed) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.95 Tw
(in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.95 Tw
(3553\(a\), subject to appellate review for `reasonable-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.56 Tw
(ness.'" ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Pepper v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 131 S.Ct. 1229, 1241 \(2011\).) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
3.05 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The court's comments indicate its intent to both depart and vary) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.05 Tw
(upward, but the Judgment indicates that the court only varied upward from) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.75 Tw
(the guideline range. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( J.A. 175-76. For our purposes, this apparent dis-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.25 Tw
(crepancy is immaterial. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(United States v. Diosdado-Star) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 630 F.3d 359,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.06 Tw
(365 \(4th Cir.\), ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(cert. denied) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 131 S.Ct. 2946 \(2011\) \(noting "the practical) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(effects of applying either a departure or a variance are the same"\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -421.15 m 300 -421.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(6) Tj
86.4223 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARGROVE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
3641
endobj
23 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 26 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 24 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 7 7
28 0 obj
<<
/Length 29 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.85 Tw
0 Tc
("Reasonableness review has procedural and substantive com-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(ponents." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 597 F.3d 212,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.58 Tw
(216 \(4th Cir. 2010\). "Procedural reasonableness evaluates the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.73 Tw
(method used to determine a defendant's sentence. . . . Sub-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.95 Tw
(stantive reasonableness examines the totality of the circum-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.33 Tw
(stances to see whether the sentencing court abused its) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.03 Tw
(discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.9 Tw
(standards set forth in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.9 Tw
(3553\(a\)." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Mendoza-Mendoza) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 597) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(F.3d at 216.) Tj
144.168 -26.7 Td
(A.) Tj
-132.168 -26.7 Td
4.83 Tw
(Although the sentencing guidelines are only advisory,) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.38 Tw
(improper calculation of a guideline range constitutes signifi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.28 Tw
(cant procedural error, making the sentence procedurally) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2 Tw
(unreasonable and subject to being vacated. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.23 Tw
(Clay) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 627 F.3d 959, 970 \(4th Cir. 2010\). Hargrove argues that) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.25 Tw
(he should be resentenced because the district court incorrectly) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1 Tw
(applied three sentencing enhancements and incorrectly deter-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.16 Tw
(mined his relevant conduct. He maintains that, without these) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.22 Tw
(errors, his guideline range would have been 0-6 months rather) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.7 Tw
(than the 41-51 month range used by the court. The govern-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.77 Tw
(ment concedes that the court erroneously calculated Har-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.38 Tw
(grove's guideline range by misapplying two enhancements.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.74 Tw
(Of course, we are not bound by the government's concession) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.63 Tw
(of error, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Boulware) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 604 F.3d 832, 837 \(4th) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.54 Tw
(Cir. 2010\), but if we agreed with the government and if we) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.96 Tw
(ended the analysis at this point, we would be compelled to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(vacate Hargrove's sentence and remand for resentencing.) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
1.83 Tw
(However, as with most types of errors in a criminal pro-) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
2.38 Tw
(ceeding, "procedural errors at sentencing . . . are routinely) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.26 Tw
(subject to harmlessness review." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Puckett v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 556) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.43 Tw
(U.S. 129, 141 \(2009\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Zedner v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 547) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.04 Tw
(U.S. 489, 507 \(2006\) \(noting that "[h]armless-error review . . .) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.58 Tw
(presumptively applies to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(all) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( errors where a proper objection) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.13 Tw
(is made" \(emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omit-) Tj
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(7) Tj
-208.0777 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARGROVE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
29 0 obj
3728
endobj
27 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 26 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 28 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 8 8
32 0 obj
<<
/Length 33 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.33 Tw
0 Tc
(ted\)\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In order to prevail on harmlessness review, the govern-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.53 Tw
(ment must show that an error did not affect a defendant's) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.72 Tw
("substantial rights." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Robinson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 460 F.3d 550,) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.24 Tw
(557 \(4th Cir. 2006\). A sentencing error is harmless "if the) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
3.22 Tw
(resulting sentence was not longer than that to which [the) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
4.01 Tw
(defendant] would otherwise be subject." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1 Tw
(Mehta) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 594 F.3d 277, 283 \(4th Cir. 2010\) \(internal quotation) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.66 Tw
(marks omitted\). In performing harmless-error review, an) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.5 Tw
(appellate court may assume that a sentencing error occurred) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.96 Tw
(and proceed to examine whether the error affected the sen-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.07 Tw
(tence imposed. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Jones v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 527 U.S. 373,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.34 Tw
(402 \(1999\) \(discussing harmless-error review of death sen-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(tences\).) Tj
12 -26.9 Td
1.08 Tw
(The government contends that regardless of any errors the) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.25 Tw
(district court may have made in calculating Hargrove's guide-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.74 Tw
(line range, the errors are harmless and resentencing is unnec-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.42 Tw
(essary because the court expressly imposed a substantively) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.28 Tw
(reasonable alternate sentence based on the ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.28 Tw
(3553\(a\) factors.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.78 Tw
(For support, the government specifically points to our deci-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.84 Tw
(sion in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Savillon-Matute) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 636 F.3d 119 \(4th) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(Cir.\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cert. denied) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 132 S.Ct. 454 \(2011\).) Tj
12 -26.8 Td
2.38 Tw
(In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Savillon-Matute) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the defendant appealed his 36-month) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
2.05 Tw
(upward variance sentence, arguing that he should be resen-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.17 Tw
(tenced because the district court incorrectly increased his base) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.93 Tw
(offense level by eight levels. The propriety of that offense-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.25 Tw
(level enhancement hinged on the applicability of the modified) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1 Tw
(categorical approach established in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Shepard v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.9 Tw
(544 U.S. 13 \(2005\), as it pertained to the defendant's prior) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2 Tw
(conviction. Without the asserted guideline calculation error,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.63 Tw
(the guideline range would have been 4-10 months rather than) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.14 Tw
(the 12-18 month range applied by the court. Using an "as-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.01 Tw
(sumed error harmlessness inquiry," we affirmed the sentence) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.5 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.14 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Harmlessness review is mandated generally by 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.14 Tw
(2111 and) Tj
-10 -11.4 Td
1 Tw
(Fed. R. Crim. P. 52\(a\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -466.05 m 300 -466.05 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(8) Tj
86.4223 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARGROVE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
33 0 obj
4031
endobj
31 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 26 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 32 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 9 9
35 0 obj
<<
/Length 36 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.23 Tw
0 Tc
("without reaching the merits of the claimed guideline error.") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Savillon-Matute) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 636 F.3d at 123-24.) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
1.81 Tw
(As we explained, the assumed error harmlessness inquiry) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.3 Tw
("requires \(1\) `knowledge that the district court would have) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(reached the same result even if it had decided the guidelines) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.97 Tw
(issue the other way,' and \(2\) `a determination that the sen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(tence would be reasonable even if the guidelines issue had) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.72 Tw
(been decided in the defendant's favor.'" ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 123 \(quoting) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
4 Tw
(United States v. Keene) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 470 F.3d 1347, 1349 \(11th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(2006\)\). We explained the point underlying this inquiry: "`[I]t) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.54 Tw
(would make no sense to set aside [a] reasonable sentence and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.05 Tw
(send the case back to the district court since it has already told) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.5 Tw
(us that it would impose exactly the same sentence, a sentence) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.44 Tw
(we would be compelled to affirm.'" ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Savillon-Matute) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 636) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(F.3d at 123 \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Keene) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 470 F.3d at 1350\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.1 Td
.17 Tw
(Applying the inquiry to the facts of that case, we concluded) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.06 Tw
(with respect to the first part of the analysis that although the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.28 Tw
(district court did not specifically state that it would have) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.12 Tw
(imposed the same sentence without the enhancement, its com-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.16 Tw
(ments throughout the sentencing hearing showed that it would) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.1 Tw
(have done so. As to the second part of the analysis, we con-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.66 Tw
(cluded that even if the correct guideline range was 4-10) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.3 Tw
(months, the court adequately explained the sentence in accord) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(with the ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(3553\(a\) factors.) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
3.55 Tw
(We have applied ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Savillon-Matute) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( in several subsequent) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.17 Tw
(cases. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Shrader) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 675 F.3d 300, 315) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.22 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(We had previously reviewed an alternate sentence in performing harm-) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.65 Tw
(lessness review. In ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Revels) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 455 F.3d 448 \(4th Cir. 2006\),) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.72 Tw
(we found the district court's Sixth Amendment error in applying the sen-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.68 Tw
(tencing guidelines in a mandatory fashion to be harmless where the court) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.58 Tw
(announced, as an alternate sentence, that it would have imposed the same) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.38 Tw
(sentence under ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.38 Tw
(3553\(a\) using an advisory guideline system. We noted) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.4 Tw
(that resentencing in that instance would be "little more than an empty for-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.5 Tw
(mality, for the sentence the district court would impose on remand is a) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(foregone conclusion." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( at 452. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -388.15 m 300 -388.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9) Tj
-208.0777 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARGROVE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
36 0 obj
4301
endobj
34 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 26 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 35 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 10 10
38 0 obj
<<
/Length 39 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.26 Tw
0 Tc
(\(4th Cir. 2012\) \("We . . . need not address the propriety of the) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.81 Tw
(ACCA enhancement, because an upward variance or depar-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.73 Tw
(ture in this case would produce exactly the same result and) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
2.12 Tw
(because the transcript makes clear that the sentence herein,) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
2.06 Tw
(irrespective of any ACCA enhancement, plainly effectuated) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.13 Tw
(the trial court's sentencing intent."\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Rivera-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
2.17 Tw
(Santana) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 668 F.3d 95, 103 \(4th Cir. 2012\) \(explaining that) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.58 Tw
("we are, in any event, entitled to affirm the sentence imposed) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
2.42 Tw
( assuming its substantive reasonableness because any) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
3.67 Tw
(procedural error that may have been made in calculating) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.85 Tw
(either of the two departures would necessarily be harmless"\).) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.74 Tw
(Other circuit courts of appeals have ruled similarly. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.9 Td
1.7 Tw
(United States v. Waller) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 689 F.3d 947, 958 \(8th Cir. 2012\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.9 Td
.73 Tw
(United States v. Richardson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 676 F.3d 491, 510-511 \(5th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.5 Tw
(2012\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Hill) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 645 F.3d 900, 912-13 \(7th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(2011\).) Tj
12 -27.6 Td
1.28 Tw
(Hargrove contends that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Savillon-Matute) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( must be read nar-) Tj
-12 -13.9 Td
1.88 Tw
(rowly to apply only under the unique circumstances of that) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.66 Tw
(case \() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(i.e.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, involving the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Shepard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( issue\), and that application) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.96 Tw
(of the assumed error harmlessness inquiry in this case runs) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.58 Tw
(afoul of well-settled precedent requiring the district court to) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.67 Tw
(calculate the guidelines correctly. In his view, reviewing sen-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.9 Tw
(tences under that inquiry "would erode any incentive for dis-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1 Tw
(trict courts to address and accurately decide Guideline issues) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.74 Tw
(and would grant them a degree of discretion almost exactly) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.75 Tw
(comparable to what they enjoyed in the pre-Guidelines sys-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(tem." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reply Brief for Appellant) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, at 13. We disagree.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -27.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.59 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(At oral argument, Hargrove asserted that an alternate sentence such as) Tj
-10 -11.7 Td
0 Tw
(the one imposed in this case constitutes structural error that is not suscepti-) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
.55 Tw
(ble to harmlessness review. We find no merit to this assertion. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Wash-) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
.15 Tw
(ington v. Recuenco) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 548 U.S. 212, 218 \(2006\) \("Only in rare cases has this) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
1.36 Tw
(Court held that an error is structural, and thus requires automatic rever-) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
1.72 Tw
(sal."\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. White) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 405 F.3d 208, 222 \(4th Cir. 2005\) \("We) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
2.5 Tw
(decline to classify the error of sentencing a defendant under the pre-) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.7 Td
1 Tw
(Booker) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( mandatory guidelines regime as a structural error."\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -395.25 m 300 -395.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(10) Tj
86.4223 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARGROVE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
39 0 obj
4370
endobj
37 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 26 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 38 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 11 11
41 0 obj
<<
/Length 42 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
1.62 Tw
0 Tc
(As an initial matter, we reject Hargrove's narrow reading) Tj
-12 -14.3 Td
.62 Tw
(of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Savillon-Matute) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. Although the precise legal issue there did) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
4.1 Tw
(involve the potential application of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Shepard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the broader) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.15 Tw
(question before us was the reasonableness of the sentence in) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.41 Tw
(light of the defendant's claim that his guideline range was) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
0 Tw
(miscalculated. In that regard, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Savillon-Matute) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( is indistinguish-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(able from this case.) Tj
12 -28.4 Td
.14 Tw
(In any event, we believe that Hargrove misstates the impact) Tj
-12 -14.3 Td
2.95 Tw
(of the assumed error harmlessness inquiry. The guidelines) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.98 Tw
("provide a framework or starting point . . . for the [district) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.26 Tw
(court's] exercise of discretion," ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Freeman) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 131 S.Ct. at 2692,) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.3 Tw
(and "a district court should begin all sentencing proceedings) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
4.01 Tw
(by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range,") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -14.3 Td
.63 Tw
(Gall v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 552 U.S. 38, 49 \(2007\). However, con-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.8 Tw
(sistent with the basic mandate that we review most errors for) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.28 Tw
(harmlessness, the assumed error harmlessness inquiry is an) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.33 Tw
(appellate tool that we utilize in appropriate circumstances to) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.61 Tw
(avoid the "empty formality" of an unnecessary remand where) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.4 Tw
(it is clear that an asserted guideline miscalculation did not) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.3 Tw
(affect the ultimate sentence. This appellate standard of review) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.06 Tw
(does not allow district courts to ignore their responsibility to) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
0 Tw
(consider the guidelines in a meaningful manner when sentenc-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.5 Tw
(ing a defendant. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See generally ) Tj
(Rita v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 551 U.S.) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.53 Tw
(338, 351 \(2007\) \(noting that the presumption of reasonable-) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.5 Tw
(ness of a within-guidelines sentence applies only on appellate) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.33 Tw
(review and does not affect the district court's sentencing obli-) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.1 Tw
(gations\). Nothing in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Savillon-Matute) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( suggests otherwise, and) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.47 Tw
(the district court below certainly did not fail to consider the) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
2.74 Tw
(guidelines in a meaningful manner \(even if, as the parties) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(agree, it erred in its sentencing range calculation\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -28 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.66 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Likewise, the district court in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Savillon-Matute) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( appears to have care-) Tj
-10 -12.1 Td
.15 Tw
(fully considered the guidelines, but it simply chose a sentencing range that) Tj
0 -12.1 Td
1 Tw
(differed from what the defendant sought. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -449.25 m 300 -449.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(11) Tj
-202.5777 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARGROVE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
42 0 obj
3941
endobj
40 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 26 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 41 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 12 12
44 0 obj
<<
/Length 45 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
144.498 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(B.) Tj
-132.498 -26 Td
1.66 Tw
(We now apply the assumed error harmlessness inquiry to) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1 Tw
(the facts of this case. Under the first step of the analysis, we) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.14 Tw
(have no difficulty in concluding that the district court would) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.3 Tw
(have sentenced Hargrove to 60 months even if the guideline) Tj
0 -13 Td
2 Tw
(range was 0-6 months. The court expressly told us so. The) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.42 Tw
(dispositive question, therefore, is whether the upward vari-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(ance to 60 months from an assumed guideline range of 0-6) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.25 Tw
(months is substantively reasonable under the facts of this) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(case. Mindful of our deferential standard of review, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Savillon-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Matute) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 636 F.3d at 124, we conclude that it is.) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.97 Tw
(The fact that "a variance sentence deviates significantly) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.54 Tw
(from the advisory Guidelines range . . . does not alone render) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.45 Tw
(it presumptively unreasonable." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Rivera-Santana) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 668 F.3d at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.63 Tw
(106. When reviewing substantive reasonableness, we "may) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.83 Tw
(consider the extent of the deviation [from the guidelines) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.81 Tw
(range], but must give due deference to the district court's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.58 Tw
(decision that the ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.58 Tw
(3553\(a\) factors, on a whole, justify the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.68 Tw
(extent of the variance." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Gall) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 552 U.S. at 51. Section 3553\(a\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.26 Tw
(instructs the district court to consider \(1\) offense and offender) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(characteristics; \(2\) the need for a sentence to reflect the basic) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(aims of sentencing \() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(i.e.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, retribution, deterrence, incapacita-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.1 Tw
(tion, and rehabilitation\); \(3\) the sentences legally available;) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(\(4\) the sentencing guidelines; \(5\) any Sentencing Commission) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(policy statements; \(6\) the need to avoid unwarranted dispari-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(ties; and \(7\) the need for restitution. The record reflects that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(the district court conducted a thorough individualized assess-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(ment of Hargrove and his offense conduct in light of these) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(factors.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.24 Tw
(For example, the district court was well aware of the nature) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.18 Tw
(and circumstances of Hargrove's offense. The presentence) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(investigation report, the government's sentencing memoran-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.21 Tw
(dum, and the testimony of Special Agent Barnhart detailed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(Hargrove's cruel and barbaric treatment of the dogs he trained) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.97 Tw
(to fight. The court was also able to view evidence pertaining) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(12) Tj
86.4223 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARGROVE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
45 0 obj
3640
endobj
43 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 44 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 13 13
47 0 obj
<<
/Length 48 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.71 Tw
0 Tc
(to Hargrove's mistreatment of dogs, and it described the) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(offense conduct as being "incredibly barbaric." J.A. 134.) Tj
12 -25.1 Td
.38 Tw
(In addition, the district court considered Hargrove's history) Tj
-12 -12.6 Td
1.4 Tw
(and characteristics. While acknowledging that Hargrove was) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.92 Tw
(a military veteran who had provided heroic service to his) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.43 Tw
(country, the court noted that he chose to "discard all of that) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.3 Tw
(for this life of brutality and life of cruelty." J.A. 137. The) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.78 Tw
(court observed that Hargrove's involvement in dogfighting) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.35 Tw
(became "the most prominent, distinguishing characteristic of) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.34 Tw
(his life," J.A. 138, and it questioned whether Hargrove truly) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.42 Tw
(appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct and accepted full) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(responsibility for the damage his behavior caused. ) Tj
12 -25.2 Td
.63 Tw
(The district court also considered the need for the sentence) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.04 Tw
(to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.2 Tw
(the law, to provide just punishment for the offense, and to) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.34 Tw
(afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. The court) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1 Tw
(knew from Hargrove's admissions that he had been involved) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.33 Tw
(in dogfighting and training for several decades and that it was) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.25 Tw
(difficult for him to keep away from dogfighting because it) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.66 Tw
(was a big part of his life. Additionally, the court noted that) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.37 Tw
(Hargrove planned his extensive involvement in this criminal) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.07 Tw
(activity, and it expressed concern about the danger that his) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.26 Tw
(conduct presented to others, stating that he was "introducing) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.97 Tw
(into the society . . . animals who have been so deranged that) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(they become a threat, a danger to humanity." J.A. 140.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.1 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.77 Tw
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(In arguing that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, Hargrove) Tj
-10 -10.8 Td
3.17 Tw
(points to other dogfighting sentences and contends that his sentence) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.06 Tw
(creates an improper sentencing disparity. "Put succinctly, we are unwilling) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.96 Tw
(to isolate a possible sentencing disparity to the exclusion of all the other) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
1.92 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.92 Tw
(3553\(a\) factors." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Rivera-Santana) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 668 F.3d at 106 \(internal quotation) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.44 Tw
(marks omitted\). In any event, we find that cases cited by Hargrove do not) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.17 Tw
(involve similarly situated defendants. Hargrove also contends that because) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.45 Tw
(he received the statutory maximum sentence, he received no credit for his) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.7 Tw
(acceptance of responsibility. However, the record reflects that acceptance) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.81 Tw
(of responsibility was included in the guideline calculation \(at any range\),) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.36 Tw
(and we hold that a sentence is not ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(per se) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( unreasonable simply because the) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.32 Tw
(district court imposes a sentence at the statutory maximum on a defendant) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
1 Tw
(who has accepted responsibility. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -348.65 m 300 -348.65 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13) Tj
-202.5777 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARGROVE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
48 0 obj
4245
endobj
46 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 26 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 47 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 14 14
51 0 obj
<<
/Length 52 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.9 Tw
0 Tc
(In short, the court made abundantly clear that even if Har-) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
5.81 Tw
(grove's sentencing guideline range was 0-6 months, it) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.24 Tw
(believed a 60-month sentence was necessary to accomplish) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.37 Tw
(the objectives of sentencing. Given the record before us, we) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.18 Tw
(cannot conclude that the court's exercise of its sentencing dis-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(cretion in imposing a 60-month sentence is unreasonable.) Tj
144.006 -26.2 Td
(III) Tj
-132.006 -26.2 Td
(Based on the foregoing, we affirm Hargrove's sentence.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
228.684 -18 Td
(AFFIRMED) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14) Tj
86.4223 0 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. H) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARGROVE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
52 0 obj
1137
endobj
50 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 51 0 R
>>
endobj
1 0 obj
[ /PDF /Text ]
endobj
53 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
54 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Bold
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 139.00
/StemH 69.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 676
/XHeight 461
/Ascent 676
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F1
/BaseFont /Times-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300
250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500
930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778
611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500
333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500
556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400
722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556
667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000
389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722
722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ]
/Encoding 53 0 R
/FontDescriptor 54 0 R
>>
endobj
55 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
56 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Roman
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 84.00
/StemH 42.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 662
/XHeight 450
/Ascent 683
/Descent -217
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F2
/BaseFont /Times-Roman
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300
250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444
921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722
556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500
333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500
500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400
667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611
444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556
611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ]
/Encoding 55 0 R
/FontDescriptor 56 0 R
>>
endobj
57 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 240 /apple ]
>>
endobj
58 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Symbol
/Flags 4
/FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 85.00
/StemH 42.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 0
/XHeight 0
/Ascent 0
/Descent 0
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F3
/BaseFont /Symbol
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444
549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722
768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500
500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549
549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603
400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658
823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713
768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603
494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494
790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ]
/Encoding 57 0 R
/FontDescriptor 58 0 R
>>
endobj
59 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
60 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Italic
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 76.00
/StemH 38.00
/ItalicAngle -15.50
/CapHeight 653
/XHeight 441
/Ascent 683
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F4
/BaseFont /Times-Italic
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300
250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500
920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722
611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500
333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500
500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400
667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611
611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611
500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500
611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ]
/Encoding 59 0 R
/FontDescriptor 60 0 R
>>
endobj
61 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
62 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Helvetica-Bold
/Flags 32
/FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 140.00
/StemH 70.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 718
/XHeight 532
/Ascent 718
/Descent -207
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
26 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F5
/BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278
278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333
278 333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278
556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611
975 722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778
667 778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556
278 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611
611 611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400
722 611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722
667 667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
556 333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611
667 556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611
611 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333
1000 722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000
278 1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722
722 889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ]
/Encoding 61 0 R
/FontDescriptor 62 0 R
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/Kids [3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 17 0 R 20 0 R 23 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 63 0 R
>>
endobj
30 0 obj
<<
/Kids [27 0 R 31 0 R 34 0 R 37 0 R 40 0 R 43 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 63 0 R
>>
endobj
49 0 obj
<<
/Kids [46 0 R 50 0 R]
/Count 2
/Type /Pages
/Parent 63 0 R
>>
endobj
63 0 obj
<<
/Kids [10 0 R 30 0 R 49 0 R]
/Count 14
/Type /Pages
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 63 0 R
>>
endobj
64 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (Friday December 7, 2012 13:55:00)
/Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2)
/Producer (ECMP5)
>>
endobj
xref
0 65
0000000000 65535 f
0000053489 00000 n
0000066109 00000 n
0000002888 00000 n
0000000044 00000 n
0000002865 00000 n
0000054954 00000 n
0000057606 00000 n
0000059160 00000 n
0000061807 00000 n
0000065681 00000 n
0000006112 00000 n
0000003102 00000 n
0000006088 00000 n
0000010035 00000 n
0000006306 00000 n
0000010011 00000 n
0000013891 00000 n
0000010240 00000 n
0000013867 00000 n
0000017571 00000 n
0000014085 00000 n
0000017547 00000 n
0000021502 00000 n
0000017776 00000 n
0000021478 00000 n
0000064458 00000 n
0000025532 00000 n
0000021719 00000 n
0000025508 00000 n
0000065797 00000 n
0000029865 00000 n
0000025749 00000 n
0000029841 00000 n
0000034468 00000 n
0000030082 00000 n
0000034444 00000 n
0000039142 00000 n
0000034687 00000 n
0000039118 00000 n
0000043387 00000 n
0000039361 00000 n
0000043363 00000 n
0000047331 00000 n
0000043606 00000 n
0000047307 00000 n
0000051868 00000 n
0000047538 00000 n
0000051844 00000 n
0000065914 00000 n
0000053309 00000 n
0000052087 00000 n
0000053285 00000 n
0000053522 00000 n
0000054674 00000 n
0000056174 00000 n
0000057326 00000 n
0000058822 00000 n
0000058894 00000 n
0000060372 00000 n
0000061524 00000 n
0000063022 00000 n
0000064174 00000 n
0000066003 00000 n
0000066165 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 65
/Root 2 0 R
/Info 64 0 R
>>
startxref
66302
%%EOF
2 0 obj
<>/OCGs[95 0 R]>>/Pages 63 0 R/Type/Catalog>>
endobj
3 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/XObject<>>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<>
endobj
7 0 obj
<>
endobj
8 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
11 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
20 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
23 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
27 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
31 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
34 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
37 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
40 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
43 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
46 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
50 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
64 0 obj
<>
endobj
68 0 obj
<>
endobj
69 0 obj
<>/Font<>>>/Fields 96 0 R>>
endobj
70 0 obj
<>stream
Friday December 7, 2012 13:55:00
ECMP5
VERSACOMP R05.2
2013-05-02T08:57:10-04:00
2013-05-02T08:57:10-04:00
application/pdf
uuid:4767612c-ae3b-4ff3-8f05-422b663a2b29
uuid:0b8dccc8-9d0c-4c90-bec3-870f009f00e3
endstream
endobj
71 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.9 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(In short, the court made abundantly clear that even if Har-)Tj
5.81 Tw -12 -13.2 Td
(grove's sentencing guideline range was 0-6 months, it)Tj
2.24 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(believed a 60-month sentence was necessary to accomplish)Tj
1.37 Tw T*
(the objectives of sentencing. Given the record before us, we)Tj
0.18 Tw T*
(cannot conclude that the court's exercise of its sentencing dis-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(cretion in imposing a 60-month sentence is unreasonable.)Tj
144.006 -26.2 Td
(III)Tj
-132.006 -26.2 Td
(Based on the foregoing, we affirm Hargrove's sentence.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
228.684 -18 Td
(AFFIRMED)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw -240.684 156.8 Td
(14)Tj
86.422 0 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
283.699 -136.5 Td
(TATES)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. H)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ARGROVE)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 651.75 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
endstream
endobj
72 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
3.71 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(to Hargrove's mistreatment of dogs, and it described the)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -12.6 TD
(offense conduct as being "incredibly barbaric." J.A. 134.)Tj
0.38 Tw 12 -25.1 Td
(In addition, the district court considered Hargrove's history)Tj
1.4 Tw -12 -12.6 Td
(and characteristics. While acknowledging that Hargrove was)Tj
2.92 Tw T*
(a military veteran who had provided heroic service to his)Tj
1.43 Tw T*
(country, the court noted that he chose to "discard all of that)Tj
2.3 Tw T*
(for this life of brutality and life of cruelty." J.A. 137. The)Tj
2.78 Tw T*
(court observed that Hargrove's involvement in dogfighting)Tj
1.35 Tw T*
(became "the most prominent, distinguishing characteristic of)Tj
1.34 Tw T*
(his life," J.A. 138, and it questioned whether Hargrove truly)Tj
0.42 Tw 0 -12.7 TD
(appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct and accepted full)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(responsibility for the damage his behavior caused. )Tj
0.63 Tw 12 -25.2 Td
(The district court also considered the need for the sentence)Tj
0.04 Tw -12 -12.7 Td
(to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for)Tj
2.2 Tw T*
(the law, to provide just punishment for the offense, and to)Tj
3.34 Tw T*
(afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. The court)Tj
1 Tw T*
(knew from Hargrove's admissions that he had been involved)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(in dogfighting and training for several decades and that it was)Tj
2.25 Tw T*
(difficult for him to keep away from dogfighting because it)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(was a big part of his life. Additionally, the court noted that)Tj
1.37 Tw T*
(Hargrove planned his extensive involvement in this criminal)Tj
2.07 Tw T*
(activity, and it expressed concern about the danger that his)Tj
1.26 Tw T*
(conduct presented to others, stating that he was "introducing)Tj
0.97 Tw T*
(into the society . . . animals who have been so deranged that)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(they become a threat, a danger to humanity." J.A. 140.)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (6)Tj
1.77 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -25.1 Td
(6)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (In arguing that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, Hargrove)Tj
3.17 Tw -10 -10.8 Td
(points to other dogfighting sentences and contends that his sentence)Tj
0.06 Tw 0 -10.8 TD
(creates an improper sentencing disparity. "Put succinctly, we are unwill\
ing)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(to isolate a possible sentencing disparity to the exclusion of all the o\
ther)Tj
1.92 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
5 -405.6 Td
( )Tj
1.92 Tw (3553\(a\) factors." )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(Rivera-Santana)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 668 F.3d at 106 \(internal quotation)Tj
0.44 Tw -5 -10.8 Td
(marks omitted\). In any event, we find that cases cited by Hargrove do n\
ot)Tj
0.17 Tw T*
(involve similarly situated defendants. Hargrove also contends that becau\
se)Tj
0.45 Tw T*
(he received the statutory maximum sentence, he received no credit for hi\
s)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(acceptance of responsibility. However, the record reflects that acceptan\
ce)Tj
0.81 Tw T*
(of responsibility was included in the guideline calculation \(at any ran\
ge\),)Tj
0.36 Tw T*
(and we hold that a sentence is not )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(per se)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( unreasonable simply because the)Tj
0.32 Tw T*
(district court imposes a sentence at the statutory maximum on a defendan\
t)Tj
1 Tw T*
(who has accepted responsibility. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 294.85 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(13)Tj
-202.578 0 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
283.699 -136.5 Td
(TATES)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. H)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ARGROVE)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 651.75 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
endstream
endobj
73 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 300.498 635.1 Td
(B.)Tj
1.66 Tw -132.498 -26 Td
(We now apply the assumed error harmlessness inquiry to)Tj
1 Tw -12 -13 Td
(the facts of this case. Under the first step of the analysis, we)Tj
1.14 Tw 0 -13 TD
(have no difficulty in concluding that the district court would)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(have sentenced Hargrove to 60 months even if the guideline)Tj
2 Tw T*
(range was 0-6 months. The court expressly told us so. The)Tj
2.42 Tw T*
(dispositive question, therefore, is whether the upward vari-)Tj
1.8 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(ance to 60 months from an assumed guideline range of 0-6)Tj
3.25 Tw T*
(months is substantively reasonable under the facts of this)Tj
0.75 Tw T*
(case. Mindful of our deferential standard of review, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Savillon-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(Matute)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 636 F.3d at 124, we conclude that it is.)Tj
2.97 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The fact that "a variance sentence deviates significantly)Tj
0.54 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(from the advisory Guidelines range . . . does not alone render)Tj
1.45 Tw T*
(it presumptively unreasonable." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
159.894 -204 Td
(Rivera-Santana)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 668 F.3d at)Tj
2.63 Tw -159.894 -13.1 Td
(106. When reviewing substantive reasonableness, we "may)Tj
3.83 Tw T*
(consider the extent of the deviation [from the guidelines)Tj
2.81 Tw T*
(range], but must give due deference to the district court's)Tj
2.58 Tw T*
(decision that the \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.58 Tw (3553\(a\) factors, on a whole, justify the)Tj
0.68 Tw T*
(extent of the variance." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Gall)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 552 U.S. at 51. Section 3553\(a\))Tj
0.26 Tw T*
(instructs the district court to consider \(1\) offense and offender)Tj
0.67 Tw T*
(characteristics; \(2\) the need for a sentence to reflect the basic)Tj
2.83 Tw T*
(aims of sentencing \()Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(i.e.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, retribution, deterrence, incapacita-)Tj
2.1 Tw T*
(tion, and rehabilitation\); \(3\) the sentences legally available;)Tj
0.14 Tw T*
(\(4\) the sentencing guidelines; \(5\) any Sentencing Commission)Tj
1 Tw T*
(policy statements; \(6\) the need to avoid unwarranted dispari-)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(ties; and \(7\) the need for restitution. The record reflects that)Tj
0.9 Tw T*
(the district court conducted a thorough individualized assess-)Tj
2 Tw T*
(ment of Hargrove and his offense conduct in light of these)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(factors.)Tj
0.24 Tw 12 -26 Td
(For example, the district court was well aware of the nature)Tj
3.18 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(and circumstances of Hargrove's offense. The presentence)Tj
2 Tw T*
(investigation report, the government's sentencing memoran-)Tj
2.21 Tw T*
(dum, and the testimony of Special Agent Barnhart detailed)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(Hargrove's cruel and barbaric treatment of the dogs he trained)Tj
0.97 Tw T*
(to fight. The court was also able to view evidence pertaining)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(12)Tj
86.422 0 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
283.699 -136.5 Td
(TATES)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. H)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ARGROVE)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 651.75 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
endstream
endobj
74 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.62 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(As an initial matter, we reject Hargrove's narrow reading)Tj
0.62 Tw -12 -14.3 Td
(of )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Savillon-Matute)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(. Although the precise legal issue there did)Tj
4.1 Tw 0 -14.3 TD
(involve the potential application of )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
191.488 -37 Td
(Shepard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the broader)Tj
1.15 Tw -191.488 -14.3 Td
(question before us was the reasonableness of the sentence in)Tj
2.41 Tw T*
(light of the defendant's claim that his guideline range was)Tj
0 Tw T*
(miscalculated. In that regard, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Savillon-Matute)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( is indistinguish-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(able from this case.)Tj
0.14 Tw 12 -28.4 Td
(In any event, we believe that Hargrove misstates the impact)Tj
2.95 Tw -12 -14.3 Td
(of the assumed error harmlessness inquiry. The guidelines)Tj
1.98 Tw T*
("provide a framework or starting point . . . for the [district)Tj
1.26 Tw T*
(court's] exercise of discretion," )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Freeman)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 131 S.Ct. at 2692,)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(and "a district court should begin all sentencing proceedings)Tj
4.01 Tw T*
(by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range,")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.63 Tw T*
(Gall v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 552 U.S. 38, 49 \(2007\). However, con-)Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(sistent with the basic mandate that we review most errors for)Tj
2.28 Tw T*
(harmlessness, the assumed error harmlessness inquiry is an)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(appellate tool that we utilize in appropriate circumstances to)Tj
0.61 Tw T*
(avoid the "empty formality" of an unnecessary remand where)Tj
2.4 Tw T*
(it is clear that an asserted guideline miscalculation did not)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(affect the ultimate sentence. This appellate standard of review)Tj
1.06 Tw T*
(does not allow district courts to ignore their responsibility to)Tj
0 Tw T*
(consider the guidelines in a meaningful manner when sentenc-)Tj
0.5 Tw T*
(ing a defendant. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See generally Rita v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 551 U.S.)Tj
1.53 Tw T*
(338, 351 \(2007\) \(noting that the presumption of reasonable-)Tj
0.5 Tw 0 -14.2 TD
(ness of a within-guidelines sentence applies only on appellate)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(review and does not affect the district court's sentencing obli-)Tj
1.1 Tw T*
(gations\). Nothing in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Savillon-Matute)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( suggests otherwise, and)Tj
1.47 Tw T*
(the district court below certainly did not fail to consider the)Tj
2.74 Tw T*
(guidelines in a meaningful manner \(even if, as the parties)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(agree, it erred in its sentencing range calculation\).)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (5)Tj
1.66 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -28 Td
(5)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Likewise, the district court in )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Savillon-Matute)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( appears to have care-)Tj
0.15 Tw -10 -12.1 Td
(fully considered the guidelines, but it simply chose a sentencing range \
that)Tj
1 Tw 0 -12.1 TD
(differed from what the defendant sought. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 194.25 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(11)Tj
-202.578 0 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
283.699 -136.5 Td
(TATES)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. H)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ARGROVE)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 651.75 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
endstream
endobj
75 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.26 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(\(4th Cir. 2012\) \("We . . . need not address the propriety of the)Tj
1.81 Tw 0 -13.9 TD
(ACCA enhancement, because an upward variance or depar-)Tj
1.73 Tw T*
(ture in this case would produce exactly the same result and)Tj
2.12 Tw T*
(because the transcript makes clear that the sentence herein,)Tj
2.06 Tw T*
(irrespective of any ACCA enhancement, plainly effectuated)Tj
1.13 Tw T*
(the trial court's sentencing intent."\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Rivera-)Tj
2.17 Tw T*
(Santana)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 668 F.3d 95, 103 \(4th Cir. 2012\) \(explaining that)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
("we are, in any event, entitled to affirm the sentence imposed)Tj
2.42 Tw T*
(\320 assuming its substantive reasonableness \320 because any)Tj
3.67 Tw T*
(procedural error that may have been made in calculating)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(either of the two departures would necessarily be harmless"\).)Tj
0.74 Tw T*
(Other circuit courts of appeals have ruled similarly. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
256.204 -161.3 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.7 Tw -256.204 -13.9 Td
(United States v. Waller)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 689 F.3d 947, 958 \(8th Cir. 2012\);)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.73 Tw T*
(United States v. Richardson)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 676 F.3d 491, 510-511 \(5th Cir.)Tj
1.5 Tw T*
(2012\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Hill)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 645 F.3d 900, 912-13 \(7th Cir.)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(2011\).)Tj
1.28 Tw 12 -27.6 Td
(Hargrove contends that )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Savillon-Matute)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( must be read nar-)Tj
1.88 Tw -12 -13.9 Td
(rowly to apply only under the unique circumstances of that)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(case \()Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(i.e.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, involving the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Shepard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( issue\), and that application)Tj
1.96 Tw T*
(of the assumed error harmlessness inquiry in this case runs)Tj
1.58 Tw T*
(afoul of well-settled precedent requiring the district court to)Tj
0.67 Tw 0 -13.8 TD
(calculate the guidelines correctly. In his view, reviewing sen-)Tj
0.9 Tw T*
(tences under that inquiry "would erode any incentive for dis-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(trict courts to address and accurately decide Guideline issues)Tj
1.74 Tw T*
(and would grant them a degree of discretion almost exactly)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(comparable to what they enjoyed in the pre-Guidelines sys-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(tem." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Reply Brief for Appellant)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, at 13. We disagree.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (4)Tj
0.59 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -27.2 Td
(4)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (At oral argument, Hargrove asserted that an alternate sentence such as)Tj
0 Tw -10 -11.7 Td
(the one imposed in this case constitutes structural error that is not su\
scepti-)Tj
0.55 Tw 0 -11.7 TD
(ble to harmlessness review. We find no merit to this assertion. )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(See Wash-)Tj
0.15 Tw T*
(ington v. Recuenco)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 548 U.S. 212, 218 \(2006\) \("Only in rare cases has this)Tj
1.36 Tw T*
(Court held that an error is structural, and thus requires automatic reve\
r-)Tj
1.72 Tw T*
(sal."\); )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(United States v. White)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 405 F.3d 208, 222 \(4th Cir. 2005\) \("We)Tj
2.5 Tw T*
(decline to classify the error of sentencing a defendant under the pre-)Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
1 Tw T*
(Booker)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( mandatory guidelines regime as a structural error."\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 248.25 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(10)Tj
86.422 0 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
283.699 -136.5 Td
(TATES)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. H)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ARGROVE)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 651.75 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
endstream
endobj
76 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.23 Tw 156 635.1 Td
("without reaching the merits of the claimed guideline error.")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(Savillon-Matute)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 636 F.3d at 123-24.)Tj
1.81 Tw 12 -26.1 Td
(As we explained, the assumed error harmlessness inquiry)Tj
2.3 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
("requires \(1\) `knowledge that the district court would have)Tj
1.14 Tw T*
(reached the same result even if it had decided the guidelines)Tj
1.97 Tw T*
(issue the other way,' and \(2\) `a determination that the sen-)Tj
2.18 Tw T*
(tence would be reasonable even if the guidelines issue had)Tj
1.72 Tw T*
(been decided in the defendant's favor.'" )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
218.484 -113.1 Td
( at 123 \(quoting)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
4 Tw -218.484 -13.1 Td
(United States v. Keene)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 470 F.3d 1347, 1349 \(11th Cir.)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(2006\)\). We explained the point underlying this inquiry: "`[I]t)Tj
0.54 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(would make no sense to set aside [a] reasonable sentence and)Tj
0.05 Tw T*
(send the case back to the district court since it has already told)Tj
0.5 Tw T*
(us that it would impose exactly the same sentence, a sentence)Tj
3.44 Tw T*
(we would be compelled to affirm.'" )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Savillon-Matute)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 636)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(F.3d at 123 \(quoting )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Keene)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 470 F.3d at 1350\).)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (3)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.17 Tw 0 Ts 12 -26.1 Td
(Applying the inquiry to the facts of that case, we concluded)Tj
1.06 Tw -12 -13.2 Td
(with respect to the first part of the analysis that although the)Tj
3.28 Tw T*
(district court did not specifically state that it would have)Tj
0.12 Tw T*
(imposed the same sentence without the enhancement, its com-)Tj
0.16 Tw T*
(ments throughout the sentencing hearing showed that it would)Tj
1.1 Tw T*
(have done so. As to the second part of the analysis, we con-)Tj
3.66 Tw T*
(cluded that even if the correct guideline range was 4-10)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(months, the court adequately explained the sentence in accord)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(with the \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (3553\(a\) factors.)Tj
3.55 Tw 12 -26.2 Td
(We have applied )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Savillon-Matute)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( in several subsequent)Tj
1.17 Tw -12 -13.2 Td
(cases. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Shrader)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 675 F.3d 300, 315)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.22 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26 Td
(3)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (We had previously reviewed an alternate sentence in performing harm-)Tj
0.65 Tw -10 -11.2 Td
(lessness review. In )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(United States v. Revels)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 455 F.3d 448 \(4th Cir. 2006\),)Tj
0.72 Tw 0 -11.2 TD
(we found the district court's Sixth Amendment error in applying the sen-\
)Tj
0.68 Tw T*
(tencing guidelines in a mandatory fashion to be harmless where the court\
)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(announced, as an alternate sentence, that it would have imposed the same\
)Tj
1.38 Tw T*
(sentence under \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.38 Tw (3553\(a\) using an advisory guideline system. We noted)Tj
0.4 Tw T*
(that resentencing in that instance would be "little more than an empty f\
or-)Tj
1.5 Tw T*
(mality, for the sentence the district court would impose on remand is a)Tj
1 Tw T*
(foregone conclusion." )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( at 452. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 255.35 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 450.5 655.5 Td
(9)Tj
-208.078 0 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
283.699 -136.5 Td
(TATES)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. H)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ARGROVE)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 651.75 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
endstream
endobj
77 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.33 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(ted\)\).)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (2)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( In order to prevail on harmlessness review, the govern-)Tj
2.53 Tw 0 -13.6 TD
(ment must show that an error did not affect a defendant's)Tj
0.72 Tw T*
("substantial rights." )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
98.904 -35.6 Td
(United States v. Robinson)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 460 F.3d 550,)Tj
2.24 Tw -98.904 -13.6 Td
(557 \(4th Cir. 2006\). A sentencing error is harmless "if the)Tj
3.22 Tw T*
(resulting sentence was not longer than that to which [the)Tj
4.01 Tw T*
(defendant] would otherwise be subject." )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(United States v.)Tj
1 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(Mehta)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 594 F.3d 277, 283 \(4th Cir. 2010\) \(internal quotation)Tj
4.66 Tw T*
(marks omitted\). In performing harmless-error review, an)Tj
1.5 Tw T*
(appellate court may assume that a sentencing error occurred)Tj
1.96 Tw T*
(and proceed to examine whether the error affected the sen-)Tj
0.07 Tw T*
(tence imposed. )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Jones v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 527 U.S. 373,)Tj
2.34 Tw T*
(402 \(1999\) \(discussing harmless-error review of death sen-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(tences\).)Tj
1.08 Tw 12 -26.9 Td
(The government contends that regardless of any errors the)Tj
0.25 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(district court may have made in calculating Hargrove's guide-)Tj
0.74 Tw T*
(line range, the errors are harmless and resentencing is unnec-)Tj
2.42 Tw T*
(essary because the court expressly imposed a substantively)Tj
1.28 Tw T*
(reasonable alternate sentence based on the \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.28 Tw (3553\(a\) factors.)Tj
1.78 Tw T*
(For support, the government specifically points to our deci-)Tj
1.84 Tw T*
(sion in )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(United States v. Savillon-Matute)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 636 F.3d 119 \(4th)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(Cir.\), )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(cert. denied)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 132 S.Ct. 454 \(2011\).)Tj
2.38 Tw 12 -26.8 Td
(In )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Savillon-Matute)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the defendant appealed his 36-month)Tj
2.05 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(upward variance sentence, arguing that he should be resen-)Tj
0.17 Tw T*
(tenced because the district court incorrectly increased his base)Tj
1.93 Tw T*
(offense level by eight levels. The propriety of that offense-)Tj
0.25 Tw T*
(level enhancement hinged on the applicability of the modified)Tj
1 Tw T*
(categorical approach established in )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Shepard v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
1.9 Tw T*
(544 U.S. 13 \(2005\), as it pertained to the defendant's prior)Tj
2 Tw T*
(conviction. Without the asserted guideline calculation error,)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(the guideline range would have been 4-10 months rather than)Tj
2.14 Tw T*
(the 12-18 month range applied by the court. Using an "as-)Tj
1.01 Tw T*
(sumed error harmlessness inquiry," we affirmed the sentence)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
1.14 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.5 Td
(2)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Harmlessness review is mandated generally by 28 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.14 Tw (2111 and)Tj
1 Tw -10 -11.4 Td
(Fed. R. Crim. P. 52\(a\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 177.45 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(8)Tj
86.422 0 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
283.699 -136.5 Td
(TATES)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. H)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ARGROVE)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 651.75 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
endstream
endobj
78 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.85 Tw 156 635.1 Td
("Reasonableness review has procedural and substantive com-)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(ponents." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 597 F.3d 212,)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(216 \(4th Cir. 2010\). "Procedural reasonableness evaluates the)Tj
1.73 Tw T*
(method used to determine a defendant's sentence. . . . Sub-)Tj
1.95 Tw T*
(stantive reasonableness examines the totality of the circum-)Tj
5.33 Tw T*
(stances to see whether the sentencing court abused its)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the)Tj
3.9 Tw T*
(standards set forth in \247)Tj
0 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
124.92 -102.9 Td
( )Tj
3.9 Tw (3553\(a\)." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Mendoza-Mendoza)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 597)Tj
1.2 Tw -124.92 -13.5 Td
(F.3d at 216.)Tj
144.168 -26.7 Td
(A.)Tj
4.83 Tw -132.168 -26.7 Td
(Although the sentencing guidelines are only advisory,)Tj
1.38 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(improper calculation of a guideline range constitutes signifi-)Tj
5.28 Tw T*
(cant procedural error, making the sentence procedurally)Tj
2 Tw T*
(unreasonable and subject to being vacated. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v.)Tj
0.23 Tw T*
(Clay)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 627 F.3d 959, 970 \(4th Cir. 2010\). Hargrove argues that)Tj
0.25 Tw T*
(he should be resentenced because the district court incorrectly)Tj
1 Tw T*
(applied three sentencing enhancements and incorrectly deter-)Tj
1.16 Tw T*
(mined his relevant conduct. He maintains that, without these)Tj
0.22 Tw T*
(errors, his guideline range would have been 0-6 months rather)Tj
1.7 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(than the 41-51 month range used by the court. The govern-)Tj
3.77 Tw T*
(ment concedes that the court erroneously calculated Har-)Tj
2.38 Tw T*
(grove's guideline range by misapplying two enhancements.)Tj
0.74 Tw T*
(Of course, we are not bound by the government's concession)Tj
1.63 Tw T*
(of error, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Boulware)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 604 F.3d 832, 837 \(4th)Tj
1.54 Tw T*
(Cir. 2010\), but if we agreed with the government and if we)Tj
1.96 Tw T*
(ended the analysis at this point, we would be compelled to)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(vacate Hargrove's sentence and remand for resentencing.)Tj
1.83 Tw 12 -26.6 Td
(However, as with most types of errors in a criminal pro-)Tj
2.38 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(ceeding, "procedural errors at sentencing . . . are routinely)Tj
0.26 Tw T*
(subject to harmlessness review." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Puckett v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 556)Tj
1.43 Tw T*
(U.S. 129, 141 \(2009\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see also Zedner v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 547)Tj
0.04 Tw T*
(U.S. 489, 507 \(2006\) \(noting that "[h]armless-error review . . .)Tj
1.58 Tw T*
(presumptively applies to )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(all)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( errors where a proper objection)Tj
0.13 Tw T*
(is made" \(emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omit-)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 294.5 504 Td
(7)Tj
-208.078 0 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
283.699 -136.5 Td
(TATES)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. H)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ARGROVE)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 651.75 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
endstream
endobj
79 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.27 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(the upward departure to 60 months and an upward variance to)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(60 months." J.A. at 147.)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (1)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.11 Tw 0 Ts 12 -26.6 Td
(In a written statement setting forth the reasons for imposing)Tj
1.2 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(a sentence outside the guideline range, the court explained:)Tj
0.81 Tw 22 -26.6 Td
([T]he court found under [18 U.S.C. \247] 3553 that the)Tj
1.46 Tw T*
(nature of the offense was extreme cruelty, the [his-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(tory] and characteristics of the defendant were such)Tj
2.83 Tw T*
(that he lack[ed] any remorse or sympathy for his)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(actions and that he had been engaged undeterred in)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(this behavior for over 40 years showing also a lack)Tj
0.52 Tw T*
(of respect for the law. The sentence is a [deterrence])Tj
2.33 Tw T*
(for future crimes and diminishes unwarranted sen-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(tencing [disparities] among similarly situated defen-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(dants.)Tj
-22 -26.6 Td
(J.A. 176.)Tj
146.004 -26.6 Td
(II)Tj
0.63 Tw -134.004 -26.5 Td
("Federal sentencing law requires the district judge in every)Tj
0.1 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(case to impose `a sentence sufficient, but not greater than nec-)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(essary, to comply with' the purposes of federal sentencing, in)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(light of the Guidelines and other \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.63 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
171.432 -328.9 Td
(3553\(a\) factors." )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Freeman)Tj
2.51 Tw -171.432 -13.4 Td
(v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 2692 \(2011\) \(quoting 18)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.58 Tw (3553\(a\)\). Under the current sentencing regime, "dis-)Tj
4.14 Tw T*
(trict courts may impose sentences within statutory limits)Tj
1 Tw T*
(based on appropriate consideration of all of the factors listed)Tj
3.95 Tw T*
(in \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
3.95 Tw (3553\(a\), subject to appellate review for `reasonable-)Tj
0.56 Tw T*
(ness.'" )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Pepper v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 131 S.Ct. 1229, 1241 \(2011\).)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
3.05 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.2 Td
(1)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (The court's comments indicate its intent to both depart and vary)Tj
0.05 Tw -10 -11.3 Td
(upward, but the Judgment indicates that the court only varied upward fro\
m)Tj
0.75 Tw 0 -11.3 TD
(the guideline range. )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( J.A. 175-76. For our purposes, this apparent dis-)Tj
0.25 Tw T*
(crepancy is immaterial. )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(See United States v. Diosdado-Star)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 630 F.3d 359,)Tj
1.06 Tw T*
(365 \(4th Cir.\), )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(cert. denied)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 131 S.Ct. 2946 \(2011\) \(noting "the practical)Tj
1 Tw T*
(effects of applying either a departure or a variance are the same"\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 222.35 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(6)Tj
86.422 0 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
283.699 -136.5 Td
(TATES)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. H)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ARGROVE)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 651.75 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
endstream
endobj
80 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.7 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(by his prior dogfighting-related convictions, and it stated that)Tj
1.25 Tw 0 -13 TD
(he deserved a longer sentence than other federal dogfighting)Tj
1.81 Tw T*
(convicts. The government requested a departure or variance)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(up to the statutory maximum term of 60 months.)Tj
1.96 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The district court announced that it was prepared to sen-)Tj
0.41 Tw -12 -13 Td
(tence Hargrove both under the guidelines and with an upward)Tj
0.05 Tw T*
(departure and upward variance. The court expressed its dissat-)Tj
1.4 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(isfaction with the "irrationality" of the dogfighting guideline)Tj
1.28 Tw T*
(provision, noting with respect to the guideline calculation of)Tj
0.97 Tw T*
(0-6 months that Hargrove advocated: "I would say that other)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(than the criminal dog fighters in America, every other person)Tj
0.13 Tw T*
(in America would be shocked beyond belief that you could do)Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(what [Hargrove] did and come out with a federal sentence of)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(zero to six months. . . . No one could defend that. No judges.)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(No legislators. No president." J.A. 135.)Tj
5.52 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The court then heard from Hargrove's counsel, who)Tj
2.81 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(emphasized that Hargrove was a highly decorated military)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(veteran who had been changed by his experience in Vietnam.)Tj
3.06 Tw T*
(Counsel also noted that in cases cited by the government)Tj
0.38 Tw T*
(involving similar activities, the defendants received imprison-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(ment sentences of between 12 and 24 months. Finally, coun-)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(sel emphasized that Hargrove had been fully compliant with)Tj
3.61 Tw T*
(his release conditions following his arrest. Hargrove then)Tj
0.22 Tw T*
(addressed the court, stating that he thought his involvement in)Tj
1.96 Tw T*
(dogfighting was wrong and that he had been backing away)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(from it for years.)Tj
2.14 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The court then announced that its guidelines calculations)Tj
1.2 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(led to a sentencing range of 41-51 months, and it stated that)Tj
2.33 Tw T*
(it would sentence Hargrove to 51 months if imposing sen-)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(tence under that range. However, the court further stated that)Tj
2.04 Tw T*
(an upward departure and an upward variance to 60 months)Tj
2.52 Tw T*
(were appropriate. In response to a query from the govern-)Tj
2.56 Tw T*
(ment, the court stated: "If I had sustained the Defendant's)Tj
3.88 Tw T*
(objections and come up with a Guideline range that the)Tj
1.1 Tw T*
(Defendant did not object to, I would still have imposed both)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
294.5 504 Td
(5)Tj
-208.078 0 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
283.699 -136.5 Td
(TATES)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. H)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ARGROVE)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 651.75 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
endstream
endobj
81 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.77 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(conduct, and inadequacy of Hargrove's criminal history cate-)Tj
2.33 Tw 0 -13 TD
(gory. As grounds for the upward variance, the government)Tj
3.71 Tw T*
(noted the violent nature of dogfighting, Hargrove's long-)Tj
2.18 Tw T*
(standing involvement in dogfighting activities, the need for)Tj
2.54 Tw T*
(deterrence, the need to protect the public, and the need to)Tj
2.91 Tw T*
(avoid sentencing disparities. In support of the motion, the)Tj
3.1 Tw T*
(government submitted a memorandum that included docu-)Tj
2.07 Tw T*
(mentary and photo exhibits which detailed the condition of)Tj
0.7 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(the dogs seized from Hargrove's property, a video clip of the)Tj
3.45 Tw T*
(demonstration fight Hargrove arranged for the undercover)Tj
4.12 Tw T*
(informant, and photos taken during the execution of the)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(search warrant on Hargrove's property.)Tj
3.28 Tw 12 -26 Td
(At the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the district)Tj
3.33 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(court noted the probation officer's recommended advisory)Tj
1.58 Tw T*
(guideline range of 10-16 months and then heard Hargrove's)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(objections. Again, Hargrove contended that the range should)Tj
1.88 Tw T*
(be 0-6 months. After hearing from Hargrove, the court dis-)Tj
0.91 Tw T*
(cussed with the probation officer the possibility of additional)Tj
0.93 Tw T*
(increases to the offense level calculation for more than mini-)Tj
0.44 Tw T*
(mal planning, vulnerable victims, and role in the offense. The)Tj
0.02 Tw T*
(court then informed the parties that it intended to rely on these)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(enhancements to increase the recommended offense level.)Tj
2.16 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The district court then invited the government to present)Tj
1 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(evidence in support of its motion for an upward departure or)Tj
0.16 Tw T*
(a variance. Among other things, the government presented the)Tj
0.21 Tw T*
(testimony of Special Agent Mark Barnhart, who described the)Tj
1.8 Tw T*
(tools of the dogfighting trade that trainers use to increase a)Tj
0.95 Tw T*
(dog's aggressiveness and stamina, recounted the results from)Tj
1.12 Tw T*
(the search of Hargrove's property, and described the injuries)Tj
2.37 Tw T*
(that dogs often sustain during fights. The government then)Tj
0.83 Tw T*
(repeated its request for an upward departure or, alternatively,)Tj
3.71 Tw T*
(for an upward variance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
3.71 Tw (3553\(a\).)Tj
0.12 Tw T*
(Regarding the variance request, the government pointed to the)Tj
2.55 Tw T*
(violent nature of dogfighting and Hargrove's long-standing)Tj
1.7 Tw T*
(involvement in breeding and training dogs for fighting. The)Tj
1.83 Tw T*
(government also noted that Hargrove had not been deterred)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(4)Tj
86.422 0 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
94.364 12 Td
(NITED)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
283.699 -136.5 Td
(TATES)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. H)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ARGROVE)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 651.75 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
endstream
endobj
82 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
3.08 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(The investigation underlying this case began with com-)Tj
3.57 Tw -12 -13 Td
(plaints that Hargrove was involved in dogfighting on his)Tj
0.5 Tw 0 -13 TD
(property in Duplin County, North Carolina. During the inves-)Tj
2.7 Tw T*
(tigation Hargrove sold an American Pit Bull Terrier to an)Tj
1.14 Tw T*
(undercover informant. The sale was consummated after Har-)Tj
3.16 Tw T*
(grove demonstrated the dog's prowess by fighting it with)Tj
0.2 Tw T*
(another dog on his property. Pursuant to a search warrant, law)Tj
2.42 Tw T*
(enforcement officers seized 34 additional dogs which were)Tj
0.77 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(eventually euthanized because of poor health, aggressive ten-)Tj
3.22 Tw T*
(dencies, or both. Additionally, the officers found multiple)Tj
2.91 Tw T*
(tools and indicia of the dogfighting trade throughout Har-)Tj
0.52 Tw T*
(grove's property, including: a fighting pit that was covered in)Tj
1.16 Tw T*
(a significant amount of blood; "break sticks" which are used)Tj
0.05 Tw T*
(to break the bite hold of a dog during a fight; modified jumper)Tj
1.74 Tw T*
(cables that were used to electrocute dogs; a large debris pit)Tj
2 Tw T*
(that contained, among other things, dog carcasses; a blood-)Tj
1.46 Tw T*
(covered treadmill with wooden sides; a springpole, which is)Tj
0.54 Tw T*
(used to build up a dog's leg and jaw muscles; an old "jenny,")Tj
1.11 Tw T*
(which is used to increase a dog's stamina by having the dog)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(run continuously for extended periods of time while chasing)Tj
1.07 Tw T*
(a bait; large quantities of animal medicines; and hundreds of)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(canine pedigrees.)Tj
1.33 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The government charged Hargrove in one count with vio-)Tj
0.97 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(lating \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.97 Tw (2156\(b\), which makes it unlawful "for any person to)Tj
4.42 Tw T*
(knowingly sell, buy, possess, train, transport, deliver, or)Tj
0.77 Tw T*
(receive any animal for purposes of having the animal partici-)Tj
1.42 Tw T*
(pate in an animal fighting venture." The statutory maximum)Tj
1.11 Tw T*
(for this offense is 60 months. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
149.652 -374.3 Td
(See)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( 18 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.11 Tw (49. Without a)Tj
2.17 Tw -149.652 -13.1 Td
(plea agreement, Hargrove pled guilty to the charge. Before)Tj
0.06 Tw T*
(sentencing, a probation officer calculated Hargrove's advisory)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(guideline range to be 10-16 months. Objecting to this calcula-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(tion, Hargrove argued that the range should be 0-6 months.)Tj
0.58 Tw 12 -26 Td
(While not taking issue with the probation officer's calcula-)Tj
1.25 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(tion, the government filed a motion for an upward departure)Tj
1.52 Tw T*
(and/or a variance. As grounds for the upward departure, the)Tj
2.05 Tw T*
(government listed extraordinary cruelty to animals, extreme)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 294.5 504 Td
(3)Tj
-208.078 0 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
283.699 -136.5 Td
(TATES)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. H)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ARGROVE)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 651.75 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
endstream
endobj
83 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
8.16 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public)Tj
12.12 Tw 0 -13.8 TD
(Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas)Tj
1.9 Tw 0 -13.7 TD
(G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker,)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED)Tj
1.71 Tw T*
(STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(lee.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
123.666 -46 Td
(OPINION)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
-123.666 -27.2 Td
(SHEDD, Circuit Judge:)Tj
2.75 Tw 12 -27.2 Td
(Based on his involvement in dogfighting activity, Harry)Tj
1.58 Tw -12 -13.7 Td
(Louis Hargrove was convicted of violating one provision of)Tj
0.13 Tw T*
(the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.13 Tw (2156. He now appeals his)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(60-month sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.)Tj
148.002 -27.1 Td
(I)Tj
0.61 Tw -136.002 -27.1 Td
(The government describes Hargrove as being a "legend" in)Tj
2.21 Tw -12 -13.7 Td
(the dogfighting community. By Hargrove's own admission,)Tj
0.07 Tw T*
(he has been involved in dogfighting activity for over four dec-)Tj
0.43 Tw T*
(ades, and at one time he had approximately 250 fighting dogs)Tj
2.81 Tw T*
(on his property. Information in the record shows that off-)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(spring from one of Hargrove's fighting dogs, Midnight Cow-)Tj
0.43 Tw T*
(boy, sold for large sums of money across the country because)Tj
2.57 Tw T*
(of its aggressiveness and propensity for fighting. Hargrove)Tj
3.21 Tw T*
(advertised his dogs in various dogfighting-related publica-)Tj
2.43 Tw T*
(tions, and he is famous in the dogfighting industry for his)Tj
0.94 Tw T*
(dogfighting, his breeding activities, his training regimen, and)Tj
0 Tw T*
(his ability to produce aggressive fighting dogs. His prior crim-)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(inal history includes a 1983 Georgia felony dogfighting con-)Tj
1.22 Tw T*
(viction, a 1993 North Carolina animal fighting misdemeanor)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(conviction, and a 2001 North Carolina animal cruelty misde-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(meanor conviction.)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 526.95 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(2)Tj
86.422 0 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
283.699 -136.5 Td
(TATES)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. H)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (ARGROVE)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 651.75 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
endstream
endobj
84 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 271.326 656.1 Td
(PUBLISHED)Tj
/T1_0 19 Tf
1.9 Tw 84.2 Tz -114.766 -39.4 Td
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz 66.136 -18 Td
(FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0 Tw -66.696 -18 Td
( )Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -17.6 Td
(\374)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -2.8 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
45.005 -104.2 Td
(TATES OF)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICA)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
/T1_3 12 Tf
40.663 -18 Td
(Plaintiff-Appellee,)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
-3.168 -18 Td
(v.)Tj
135.57 0 Td
(No. 11-4818)Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw -36.45 -1.3 Td
(\375)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -16.7 Td
(H)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARRY)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OUIS)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARGROVE)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
/T1_3 12 Tf
70.344 -18 Td
(Defendant-Appellant.)Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw 1.6 Ts 111.276 -8.8 Td
(\376)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 0 Ts -142.878 -25.8 Td
(Appeal from the United States District Court)Tj
-31.86 -13 Td
(for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.)Tj
56.904 -13 Td
(Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge.)Tj
32.562 -13 Td
(\(7:10-cr-00135-BO-1\))Tj
-11.136 -25.9 Td
(Argued: October 24, 2012)Tj
-7.326 -26.1 Td
(Decided: December 12, 2012)Tj
-70.866 -25.9 Td
(Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Judges.)Tj
0.95 Tw -7.02 -50.6 Td
(Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Shedd wrote the opin-)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13 TD
(ion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Agee joined.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
120.996 -43.7 Td
(COUNSEL)Tj
0.45 Tw -120.996 -25.9 Td
(ARGUED:)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
( James Edward Todd, Jr., OFFICE OF THE FED-)Tj
2.6 Tw T*
(ERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for)Tj
4.18 Tw T*
(Appellant. Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED)Tj
1.71 Tw T*
(STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-)Tj
4.47 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(lee. )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(ON BRIEF:)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
( Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 581.15 cm
0.9 w
0 0 m
183.8 0 l
h
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 342.6 538.6 cm
1.2 w
0 0 m
0 34.7 l
h
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 342.6 486.9 cm
1.2 w
0 0 m
0 34.7 l
h
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 479.95 cm
0.9 w
0 0 m
183.3 0 l
h
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 312.35 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 248.75 cm
0.5 w
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
/Artifact <>BDC
q
1 0 0 1 233.7854919 766 cm
/GS0 gs
0 Tw /Fm0 Do
Q
EMC
endstream
endobj
85 0 obj
<>>>/Resources<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Subtype/Form>>stream
BT
0 g
0 i
/C2_0 10 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 0 -7.842 TD
[<0026004800550057004C0052005500440055004C0003>1<0047004C00560050004C0056005600480047000F0003002400530055004C004F00030014001C000F00030015001300140016>]TJ
ET
endstream
endobj
86 0 obj
[88 0 R]
endobj
87 0 obj
<>stream
H\_k0}(ju0`k'}/),ssnݤZ^v