United States v. Doster Mangum, Jr. , 458 F. App'x 283 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4361
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DOSTER MANGUM, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00061-FL-1)
Submitted: November 28, 2011 Decided: December 20, 2011
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mitchell G. Styers, BANZET, THOMPSON & STYERS, PLLC, Warrenton,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Doster Mangum, Jr. pleaded guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2006). Prior to sentencing, Mangum’s
advisory Guidelines range was seventy-seven to ninety-six
months’ imprisonment pursuant to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual (“USSG”) (2010). The Government moved for an upward
departure because Mangum’s criminal history category
underrepresented the seriousness of his criminal history and
failed to adequately account for Mangum’s likelihood of
recidivism. The court granted the Government’s motion and
sentenced Mangum to 108 months’ imprisonment. Mangum now
appeals. We affirm.
When the district court imposes a departure sentence,
we consider “whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both
with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with
respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing
range.” United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118,
123 (4th Cir. 2007). Under USSG § 4A1.3(a)(1), the district
court may upwardly depart from the Guidelines range if the court
determines that “the defendant’s criminal history category
substantially under-represents the seriousness of the
defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that the
defendant will commit other crimes[.]” The court may consider
2
prior sentences not used in computing the criminal history
category. USSG § 4A1.3(a)(2)(A).
We find that the district court did not err in
upwardly departing. Mangum’s thirty-five criminal history
points are almost three times the thirteen points required to
place him in the highest criminal history category. The court
considered Mangum’s extensive criminal conduct in depth. The
court had ample evidence before it to determine that the
Guidelines range did not adequately represent the seriousness of
Mangum’s criminal history and his likelihood of recidivism.
Accordingly, the court did not err in upwardly departing.
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the
district court. 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