United States v. Desmond Whisonant ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 22-4259      Doc: 29         Filed: 03/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 3
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22-4259
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DESMOND JERMAINE WHISONANT,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
    Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00279-WO-1)
    Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 23, 2023
    Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ON BRIEF: Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra
    J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Jacob D. Pryor, Assistant United States Attorney,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 22-4259      Doc: 29         Filed: 03/23/2023    Pg: 2 of 3
    PER CURIAM:
    Desmond Jermaine Whisonant pled guilty, pursuant to a written a plea agreement,
    to distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(B). The
    district court imposed a 124-month term of imprisonment, sentencing Whisonant below his
    advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,
    Whisonant argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
    We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly
    outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
    standard.” Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 41 (2007); see United States v. Blue, 
    877 F.3d 513
    , 517 (4th Cir. 2017). This review requires consideration of both the procedural
    and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Blue, 
    877 F.3d at 517
    . We have confirmed
    that Whisonant’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. See United States v. Provance, 
    944 F.3d 213
    , 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (“[W]e are required to analyze procedural reasonableness
    before turning to substantive reasonableness.”).
    In assessing substantive reasonableness, we consider “the totality of the
    circumstances.” Gall, 
    552 U.S. at 51
    . A sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than
    necessary,” to satisfy the statutory purposes of sentencing. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a). “Any
    sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
    reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is
    unreasonable when measured against the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors.” United States v.
    Louthian, 
    756 F.3d 295
    , 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
    2
    USCA4 Appeal: 22-4259      Doc: 29         Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 3 of 3
    Whisonant argues that his sentence is too long and, therefore, is substantively
    unreasonable. At sentencing, Whisonant requested a 75-month sentence. The district court
    considered Whisonant’s mitigation arguments, including, inter alia, his difficult childhood;
    mental health challenges, particularly following the loss of his teenage son; his desire to
    support his pregnant daughter; and the fact that even 75 months’ imprisonment would be
    approximately three times longer than any other sentence he had served. However, after
    engaging with the parties’ arguments, the district court found that a sentence of less than
    124 months’ imprisonment would not adequately account for the seriousness of the offense
    or the needs to promote respect for the law and afford adequate deterrence.
    The district court carefully evaluated the § 3553(a) factors and gave due
    consideration to Whisonant’s mitigation arguments when imposing the below-Guidelines
    sentence. Whisonant has therefore failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness
    afforded his 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-4259

Filed Date: 3/23/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/24/2023