United States v. Jonathan Cradle , 537 F. App'x 211 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JONATHAN CRADLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00161-CCE-1)
Submitted: July 15, 2013 Decided: August 6, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Cradle appeals the district court’s judgment
sentencing him to thirty-two months’ imprisonment. Cradle pled
guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2006), and to making a false statement to a federal
agent in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (2006). On appeal,
Cradle contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th
Cir. 2009). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for
significant procedural error, including failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, selecting a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. When
considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we
take into account the totality of the circumstances. United
States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we presume on
appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Go,
2
517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338, 346–56 (2007) (permitting appellate presumption of
reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
Cradle contends that the district court did not give
the required weight to the mitigating circumstances that he
provided at sentencing, and therefore the district court’s
within-Guidelines sentence is not entitled to a presumption of
reasonableness. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the
district court adequately considered Cradle’s arguments for a
more lenient sentence, weighed them against the nature of his
offenses, and arrived at a sentence that was substantively
reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3