United States v. Alfornia Wall, Jr. ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4580
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALFORNIA JASON WALL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00284-TDS-1)
Submitted: July 22, 2020 Decided: August 18, 2020
Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Seth A. Neyhart, LAW OFFICE OF SETH A. NEYHART, Durham, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney, Terry M. Meinecke, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alfornia Jason Wall, Jr., appeals his prison sentence after pleading guilty to Hobbs
Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2018). Before applying a downward
departure, the district court selected a sentence at the bottom of his Guidelines range to run
consecutively to his undischarged term of imprisonment for an unrelated state offense. On
appeal, he contends that his sentence is not substantively reasonable. We affirm.
“We review the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) using an
abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of ‘whether [the sentence is] inside, just outside,
or significantly outside the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212
(4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). We first consider
“whether the district court committed any procedural error, such as improperly calculating
the Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence.” Id. (citation omitted). “If the Court ‘find[s] no significant
procedural error, [it] then consider[s] the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed.’” United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted);
see also United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 215 (4th Cir. 2019) (we must review
procedural reasonableness of sentence before addressing substantive reasonableness).
“When considering the substantive reasonableness of a prison term, we ‘examine[]
the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion
in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).’”
Arbaugh, 951 F.3d at 176 (citation omitted); see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 59-60 (an appellate
court must give due deference to a district court’s “reasoned and reasonable decision that
2
the § 3553(a) factors, on the whole, justified the sentence”). We presume that a sentence
within or below the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v. Zelaya,
908 F.3d 920, 930 (4th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). A defendant can only rebut the
presumption by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
“[I]f a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an
undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively.” 18
U.S.C. § 3584(a) (2018). “The court, in determining whether the terms imposed are to be
ordered to run concurrently or consecutively, shall consider, as to each offense for which
a term of imprisonment is being imposed, the factors set forth in section 3553(a).” 18
U.S.C. § 3584(b) (2018); United States v. Lynn, 912 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2019). Even
when U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3 (2018) provides that the sentences shall
run concurrently, “a district court is not obligated to impose a concurrent sentence” because
“the Guidelines are advisory.” Lynn, 912 F.3d at 217. “Rather, the district court is required
to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in determining whether to run sentences
consecutively or concurrently.” Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b)).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Wall’s sentence is procedurally and
substantively reasonable. On appeal, he does not assert any procedural error but contends
his sentence at the bottom of his Guidelines range as a career offender to run consecutively
to his undischarged state sentence as a habitual felon for an unrelated offense is excessive
in relation to the seriousness of his offense and overall criminal conduct. We disagree.
3
The district court adopted the presentence report finding the policy statement in
USSG § 5G1.3(d) was applicable in this case. Under both the advisory Guidelines and 18
U.S.C. § 3584(b), the district court had discretion to run Wall’s sentence consecutively or
concurrently to his undischarged state sentence after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. Here, the court reasonably found the offense of conviction was serious; and a
consecutive sentence at the bottom of his Guidelines range was appropriate given the nature
of the convictions, the continual nature of his theft offenses, and the fact that his prior
sentences were insufficient to stop him from stealing from people. Wall fails to rebut the
presumption that his sentence is reasonable; and we defer to the district court’s reasoned
and reasonable decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on the whole, justified the sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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