US v. John Onley

Filing 920090317

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4566 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN D. ONLEY, a/k/a Jamal, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00062-JPB-JES-1) Submitted: February 25, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. G. Godwin Oyewole, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John D. Onley pleaded guilty to three counts of distribution of crack cocaine and one count of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Onley objected to the relevant conduct drug amount as calculated in the presentence report. At sentencing, Onley testified regarding his relevant conduct and the Government presented evidence in support of the probation officer's findings. The district court adopted the relevant conduct drug amount as set forth in the presentence report, finding Onley's testimony to be "patently incredible." The district court declined to apply a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility on account of its determination that Onley's testimony was untruthful. Onley's resulting advisory guideline range was between 108 and 135 months' imprisonment. forth at 18 The court considered 3553(a) the sentencing factors set U.S.C. (2006), particularly remarking on Onley's history and characteristics, 3553(a)(1), appeals, and imposed that a the sentence of 108 court months. ignored Onley the arguing district "reasonableness" standard mandated under Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594-95, 597 (2007), failed to fully consider the 3553(a) factors, and erred in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. We affirm. 2 We review a federal sentence for reasonableness, under an abuse-of-discretion standard. This review requires appellate Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 594, 597. consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. 597. may Id. at A sentence within the properly calculated guideline range be afforded an appellate presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2459, 2462 (2007). Onley's 108-month sentence, which falls at the lowest end of his the guideline district with range, court the is presumptively reasonable. that the have Moreover, range, appropriately at considered and We together arguments imposing sentencing sentence. 3553(a) factors, when the consistently held that while a district court must consider the statutory factors and explain its sentence, it need not explicitly reference 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the record, particularly when the court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range. 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). court's explanation in light for of the United States v. Johnson, In this regard, the district imposed denials did not was sufficient. his in See sentence false court Moreover, relevant Onley's regarding clearly err conduct, the district denying an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 3 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(a)) (2007) (a defendant who falsely denies or frivolously contests his relevant conduct has "acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility."). In reasonable sum, and we conclude the that the court sentence did not imposed abuse is its We that district discretion in sentencing Onley to 108 months in prison. accordingly affirm. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the contentions the court materials would decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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?