United States v. Timothy Mack , 520 F. App'x 235 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4986
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY LEON MACK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00042-CCE-1)
Submitted: May 15, 2013 Decided: May 22, 2013
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S.
Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Stephen T. Inman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Leon Mack pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2006). The district court sentenced Mack to ninety-six months’
imprisonment, twenty-four months of which run concurrently with
an unrelated state sentence. On appeal, Mack argues that the
district court abused its discretion by imposing a partially
concurrent sentence rather than a wholly concurrent sentence.
For the following reasons, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a
deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v.
Diosdado–Star, 630 F.3d 359, 363, 366 (4th Cir. 2011). We first
review for significant procedural errors, including whether the
district court failed to consider the statutory factors of 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If we find a
sentence procedurally reasonable, we then consider substantive
reasonableness, applying a totality of the circumstances test.
Id. Finally, where, as here, the sentence is within the
Guidelines range, the court may apply a presumption of
reasonableness. Id.; see United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178,
193 (4th Cir. 2007).
Mack contends that his sentence is unreasonable
because the district court did not favorably weigh the factors
2
set forth in the commentary to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 5G1.3(c) (2011), for imposing a sentence on a defendant
already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment. The
central issue at Mack’s sentencing hearing was whether to impose
a consecutive sentence; the issue was fully presented and
argued. The district court explained that the sentence
reflected the nature and circumstances of the offense, the
seriousness of the offense, Mack’s lengthy criminal history, and
the need to protect the public from further crimes. The court
also stated that it had taken into account the fact that the
conduct in the instant case took place while Mack was on
pretrial release for the state offense. We discern no infirmity
in this reasoning. Therefore, we conclude that Mack’s sentence
is both procedurally and substantively reasonable and that the
district court did not abuse its discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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
3