United States v. Christopher Hall

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 28, 2022
• Docket: 21-4356
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4356 Doc: 32 Filed: 07/28/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4356

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER DEAN HALL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00457-WO-1)

Submitted: July 26, 2022 Decided: July 28, 2022

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, K. P. Kennedy Gates, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4356 Doc: 32 Filed: 07/28/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Dean Hall pleaded guilty to distribution of child pornography, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)(A), (b)(1). The probation officer assessed a Sentencing

Guidelines range of 240 months—the statutory maximum—but recommended a 188-

month sentence followed by 10 years of supervised release. At sentencing, the Government

echoed the probation officer’s request while Hall requested a 120-month sentence. The

district court sentenced Hall to 188 months followed by 15 years of supervised release. On

appeal, Hall contends that his sentence is unreasonable. For the following reasons, we

affirm.

We review the sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness under a

deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007).

In doing so, we first examine the sentence for procedural error, which includes “failing to

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

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

on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including

an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Id. at 51. We then review

the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the

circumstances.” Id. A sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable if it “is within

or below a properly calculated Guidelines range,” and this “presumption can only be

rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4356 Doc: 32 Filed: 07/28/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

Although Hall only challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, we

first review the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. See United States v. Provance,

944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the

sentence is procedurally reasonable. Next, Hall contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable because it is too harsh, disparate from the sentences received by similarly

situated defendants, and because he may have received a lower sentence from a different

district court judge. However, the district court thoroughly and reasonably explained why

a 188-month sentence was warranted. Moreover, although Hall might have received a

lower sentence from a different district judge, that does not make his sentence unreasonable

on its own. Based on the factors identified by the district court, we conclude that Hall has

failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED