United States v. Norman Manuel, Jr. , 501 F. App'x 302 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4530
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NORMAN MANUEL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:11-cr-00238-WO-1)
Submitted: December 10, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Norman Manuel, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The district court
sentenced Manuel to seventy-two months’ imprisonment, within his
properly calculated Guidelines range. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (2011). On appeal, Manuel challenges the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, contending that it
is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
This court reviews the district court’s sentence,
“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
Guidelines range[] under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). When
reviewing a sentence for substantive reasonableness, this court
“examines the totality of the circumstances,” and, if the
sentence is within the properly-calculated Guidelines range,
applies a presumption on appeal that the sentence is
substantively reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597
F.3d 212, 216-17 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption is
rebutted only if the defendant shows “that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.”
United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.
2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we
conclude that Manuel’s seventy-two-month, within-Guidelines
sentence is not substantively unreasonable, as Manuel fails to
overcome the appellate presumption of reasonableness afforded
his sentence. The district court carefully considered the
§ 3553(a) factors and showed particular concern that Manuel’s
prior sentences had not deterred him from participating in
further criminal activity, that he had a poor employment
history, and that he was a former gang member. Moreover, the
court considered the particular needs of Manuel in crafting his
sentence, ordering him to participate in substance abuse and
mental health counseling and prohibiting him from associating
with his former gang. In sum, we conclude that Manuel’s
carefully crafted sentence was not greater than necessary to
accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3