Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    United States v. Harbin, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Nathaniel Harbin's 87-month prison sentence for drug distribution. The Court found that the district court did not err in denying Harbin an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility based on his continued drug use while on bond pending sentencing. The appellate court also determined that Harbin's sentence was reasonable as it was within the properly calculated sentencing guideline range.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Harbin, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    44 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Nathaniel Harbin's 87-month prison sentence for drug distribution. The Court found that the district court did not err in denying Harbin an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility based on his continued drug use while on bond pending sentencing. The appellate court also determined that Harbin's sentence was reasonable as it was within the properly calculated sentencing guideline range.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-05-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-5085

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Nathaniel Harbin's 87-month prison sentence for drug distribution. The Court found that the district court did not err in denying Harbin an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility based on his continued drug use while on bond pending sentencing. The appellate court also determined that Harbin's sentence was reasonable as it was within the properly calculated sentencing guideline range.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    44 views3 pages

    United States v. Harbin, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Nathaniel Harbin's 87-month prison sentence for drug distribution. The Court found that the district court did not err in denying Harbin an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility based on his continued drug use while on bond pending sentencing. The appellate court also determined that Harbin's sentence was reasonable as it was within the properly calculated sentencing guideline range.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-5085

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    NATHANIEL TYRONE HARBIN, a/k/a Nate,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
    David A. Faber, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-05-91)

    Submitted:

    April 26, 2006

    Decided:

    May 10, 2006

    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,


    Appellate Counsel, George H. Lancaster, Jr., Assistant Federal
    Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles
    T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong, III,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Nathaniel Tyrone Harbin appeals his eighty-seven month
    prison sentence imposed after his guilty plea to distribution of
    cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base
    in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (2000).

    Finding no error, we

    affirm.
    Harbin claims that the district court erred in denying
    him an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility based on his
    drug use while on bond pending sentencing because his conduct did
    not relate to the offense of conviction.
    courts determination for clear error.
    F.3d 766, 771 (4th Cir. 2004).

    We review the district

    United States v. Kise, 369

    Application Note 1(b) to U.S.

    Sentencing Guidelines Manual 3E1.1(a) (2005), states that the


    court may consider whether the defendant has voluntarily withdrawn
    from criminal conduct or associations without making an exception
    for

    criminal

    conviction.
    conviction

    conduct

    that

    is

    different

    from

    the

    offense

    of

    A defendants continued use or sale of drugs after


    may

    be

    basis

    acceptance of responsibility.

    for

    denial

    of

    an

    adjustment

    for

    United States v. Kidd, 12 F.3d 30,

    34 (4th Cir. 1993); United States v. Underwood, 970 F.2d 1336, 1339
    (4th Cir. 1992).

    Harbin further contends his two positive tests

    for marijuana are not enough to justify denial of the adjustment.


    Our previous decisions do not hold that only multiple instances of
    drug use warrant denial of the adjustment, merely that there be

    - 2 -

    some use of drugs after conviction.

    In making its ruling, the

    district court did not commit error when it held that by his
    continued involvement with drugs Harbin lost the opportunity for
    the adjustment.
    Harbin also claims that his sentence was unreasonable.
    The district court properly calculated the sentencing guideline
    range of 87 to 108 months imprisonment.

    As Harbins sentence is

    within the properly calculated guideline range, it is presumptively


    reasonable.
    2006).

    United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.

    Harbin has not rebutted that presumption as the district

    court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, calculated


    and considered the guideline range, and weighed the relevant
    factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2000).
    We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
    court.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 3 -

    You might also like