United States v. Mann , 341 F. App'x 877 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4360
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONNELL MANN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00444-WDQ-2)
Submitted: August 10, 2009 Decided: August 25, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani, Staff
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michael C. Hanlon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donnell Mann pled guilty to a Hobbs Act conspiracy, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2006) (Count 2); to possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon and aiding and abetting, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 2(2006) (Count 3); and to possession of firearms in furtherance
of a crime of violence and aiding and abetting, in violation of
18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West Supp. 2009) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count
5). Despite the fact that Mann’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range was 262-327 months, the district court sentenced him to
240 months of imprisonment: 180-month concurrent sentences for
Counts 2 and 3 and a 60-month consecutive sentence for Count 5.
On appeal, Mann alleges that his sentence was procedurally and
substantively unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
We review sentences under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, __,
128 S. Ct. 586, 590 (2007). We find no significant procedural
or substantive error. Id. at 597; United States v. Pauley, 511
F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). We note that we may apply a
presumption of reasonableness on appeal to a within-Guidelines
sentence. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); see
Nelson v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 890, 892 (2009) (emphasizing
that the presumption of reasonableness accorded a within-
2
Guidelines sentence is an appellate court presumption rather
than a presumption enjoyed by a sentencing court). Thus, we
decline to find an abuse of discretion in this instance where a
district court exercised its discretion to sentence a defendant
below that range. See United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424,
434-36 (4th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, we 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
3