United States v. Hendrix

322 F. App'x 301

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 20, 2009
• Docket: 08-5246
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-5246

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA B. HENDRIX,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (8:08-cr-00429-GRA-1)

Submitted: April 3, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, William C. Lucius, William J. Watkins, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Joshua B. Hendrix was sentenced to twelve months and

one day in prison following his guilty plea to passing and

uttering counterfeit United States Federal Reserve notes in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 (West Supp. 2008). Hendrix timely

appealed and filed a motion to expedite. We affirm the judgment

of the district court and deny the motion to expedite as moot.

Hendrix’s sole argument on appeal is that the district

court committed procedural error by failing to entertain his

request to consider a sentence of probation. By ignoring his

request, Hendrix reasons that the court did not fulfill its

obligation to treat the sentencing guidelines as advisory, as

required by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Our

review of the record reveals the district court specifically

considered the advisory nature of the guidelines and thus did

not commit procedural error. See United States v. Pauley, 511

F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, we find the sentence

imposed was reasonable. See Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473-74; Gall v.

United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. We deny the motion to expedite as moot. We dispense

with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are

2 adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED