US v. Donnell Mann

Filing 920090825

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4360 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONNELL MANN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00444-WDQ-2) Submitted: August 10, 2009 Decided: August 25, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani, Staff Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michael C. Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donnell Mann pled guilty to a Hobbs Act conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) (2006) (Count 2); to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2006) and 18 U.S.C. 2 (2006) (Count 3); and to possession of firearms in furtherance of a crime of violence and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 924(c) (West Supp. 2009) and 18 U.S.C. 2 (Count 5). Despite the fact that Mann's advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 262-327 months, the district court sentenced him to 240 months of imprisonment: 180-month concurrent sentences for Counts 2 and 3 and a 60-month consecutive sentence for Count 5. On appeal, Mann alleges that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. affirm. We review sentences under a deferential abuse-ofFor the reasons that follow, we discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, __, We find no significant procedural 128 S. Ct. 586, 590 (2007). or substantive error. Id. at 597; United States v. Pauley, 511 We note that we may apply a F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). presumption of reasonableness on appeal to a within-Guidelines sentence. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); see Nelson v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 890, 892 (2009) (emphasizing that the presumption of reasonableness 2 accorded a within- Guidelines sentence is an appellate court presumption rather than a presumption enjoyed by a sentencing court). Thus, we decline to find an abuse of discretion in this instance where a district court exercised its discretion to sentence a defendant below that range. See United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 434-36 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm. 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?