United States v. Onley , 318 F. App'x 176 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4566
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN D. ONLEY, a/k/a Jamal,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00062-JPB-JES-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Godwin Oyewole, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Sharon L.
Potter, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant
United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John D. Onley pleaded guilty to three counts of
distribution of crack cocaine and one count of possession with
intent to distribute crack cocaine. Onley objected to the
relevant conduct drug amount as calculated in the presentence
report. At sentencing, Onley testified regarding his relevant
conduct and the Government presented evidence in support of the
probation officer’s findings. The district court adopted the
relevant conduct drug amount as set forth in the presentence
report, finding Onley’s testimony to be “patently incredible.”
The district court declined to apply a downward adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility on account of its determination
that Onley’s testimony was untruthful.
Onley’s resulting advisory guideline range was between
108 and 135 months’ imprisonment. The court considered the
sentencing factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006),
particularly remarking on Onley’s history and characteristics,
§ 3553(a)(1), and imposed a sentence of 108 months. Onley
appeals, arguing that the district court ignored the
“reasonableness” standard mandated under Gall v. United States,
128 S. Ct. 586, 594-95, 597 (2007), failed to fully consider the
§ 3553(a) factors, and erred in denying a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility. We affirm.
2
We review a federal sentence for reasonableness, under
an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 594, 597.
This review requires appellate consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at
597. A sentence within the properly calculated guideline range
may be afforded an appellate presumption of reasonableness.
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2459,
2462 (2007).
Onley’s 108-month sentence, which falls at the lowest
end of his guideline range, is presumptively reasonable.
Moreover, the district court appropriately considered that
range, together with the arguments at sentencing and the
§ 3553(a) factors, when imposing the sentence. We have
consistently held that while a district court must consider the
statutory factors and explain its sentence, it need not
explicitly reference § 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the
record, particularly when the court imposes a sentence within a
properly calculated guideline range. United States v. Johnson,
445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). In this regard, the district
court’s explanation for the sentence imposed was sufficient.
Moreover, in light of Onley’s false denials regarding his
relevant conduct, the district court did not clearly err in
denying an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(a))
3
(2007) (a defendant who falsely denies or frivolously contests
his relevant conduct has “acted in a manner inconsistent with
acceptance of responsibility.”).
In sum, we conclude that the sentence imposed is
reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Onley to 108 months in prison. We
accordingly affirm. 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
4