US v. Aundra Logan, No. 11-4289 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4289 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. AUNDRA LOGAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00020-D-1) Submitted: November 21, 2011 Decided: December 1, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey M. Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, P.S.C., Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Aundra Logan pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of escape from custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (2006). Logan s At sentencing, the district court calculated Guidelines range at twelve to eighteen months imprisonment, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) (2010), and imposed an upward variant sentence of thirty-six months imprisonment. On appeal, Logan challenges procedurally and substantively unreasonable. * We review the district court s this sentence as We affirm. sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range, Gall under v. a United deferential States, abuse-of-discretion 552 U.S. 38, 41 standard. (2007). This abuse-of-discretion standard of review involves two steps; under the first, we examine the sentence for significant procedural errors, and under the second, we review the substance of the sentence. 2007) United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. (examining Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51). Significant procedural errors include failing to calculate (or improperly * We previously affirmed Logan s conviction, vacated the district court s imposition of a thirty-six-month sentence, and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Logan, 395 F. App x 38 (4th Cir. 2010) (No. 08-4853). We reject as without merit the Government s contention that Logan s appellate challenge to the district court s calculation of the Guidelines range at resentencing is barred from consideration by the mandate rule. 2 calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, [(2006)] failing to factors, consider selecting the a [18 U.S.C.] sentence based § 3553(a) on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. procedural errors, reasonableness of we the If there are no significant then consider tak[ing] sentence, totality of the circumstances. the into substantive account the Id. When the district court imposes a variant sentence, we consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to range. the extent the divergence from the sentencing United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 (4th Cir. 2007). district of court s This court has recognized, however, that a error in its sentencing calculations is rendered harmless if the sentence is ultimately justified by the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 165 (4th Cir. 2008) ( [E]ven assuming the district court erred in applying defendant s] the Guideline sentence, which is departure provisions, well-justified by [the [the] § 3553(a) factors, is reasonable. ); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1432 (2009) (stating that procedural errors at sentencing . . . are routinely subject to harmlessness review ); United States v. Mehta, 594 3 F.3d 277, 283 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 279 (2010) (citing cases supporting the proposition that harmless error review applies to errors in sentencing calculations). Logan argues that the district court erred in imposing a two-level § 3B1.1(c). enhancement to his offense level under USSG However, we conclude after review of the record that, even assuming the district court erred in its calculation of the Guidelines range, the court s thorough and meaningful articulation of relevant § 3553(a) factors that also justified the imposition of the thirty-six-month sentence renders the sentence reasonable. We judgment. legal before therefore the district court s amended We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the affirm court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
