United States of America v. Charles Ervin Ladson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4300
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES ERVIN LADSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (3:04-cr-01142-JFA-1)
Submitted: April 27, 2007 Decided: May 8, 2007
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. Michael Duncan, AUSTIN, LEWIS & ROGERS, P.A., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States
Attorney, Anne Hunter Young, Assistant United State Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

*Upon the record before us it is not entirely clear as to
whether the statements at issue were made by the same or two
different co-conspirators.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Charles Ervin Ladson was found guilty by a jury of
conspiracy to commit an offense or to defraud the United States
(bank fraud) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1344 (2000). He was
sentenced to forty-one months of imprisonment within his calculated
advisory sentencing range under the federal Sentencing Guidelines.
On appeal, Ladson argues: (1) that the district court erroneously
allowed testimony from his co-Defendants regarding statements made
by an unindicted co-conspirator * and (2) that his sentence is
unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, we find no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s decision to admit the statements at issue into evidence
under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). United States v. Blevins, 960
F.2d 1252, 1255-56 (4th Cir. 1992) (stating standard). Second, we
find that the district court’s sentence, imposed within the
advisory sentencing range and after considering the factors in 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), was reasonable.
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006)
(stating that a sentence within proper advisory Guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449,
456 (4th Cir.) (noting a court must calculate the advisory
Guidelines range and then consider whether that range serves the

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
factors set forth in § 3553(a)), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309
(2006).
Accordingly, we affirm Ladson’s conviction and sentence.
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 of 3 --