US v. Ademola Taiwo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to supplement [998815383-2] Originating case number: 8:11-cr-00216-RWT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998923938].. [12-4016]

Appeal: 12-4016

Doc: 38

Filed: 08/24/2012

Pg: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADEMOLA JOHN-GABRIEL TAIWO,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Roger W. Titus, District Judge.
(8:11-cr-00216-RWT-1)

Submitted:

July 26, 2012

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

FLOYD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 24, 2012

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan S. Skelton, OFFICE
OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Jerome M.
Maiatico, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4016

Doc: 38

Filed: 08/24/2012

Pg: 2 of 7

PER CURIAM:
Ademola John-Gabriel Taiwo pled guilty, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006)
(count one), and one count of possession with the intent to
distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1)
(West

2006

&

Supp.

2012)

(count

three).

Calculating

the

advisory Guidelines sentences pursuant to the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) (2011), the district court determined
that

the

months’

sentencing

imprisonment

ranges
on

were

count

fifty-seven

one

and

months’ imprisonment on count three.

to

seventy-one

fifty-seven

to

sixty

The court sentenced Taiwo

to sixty-four months’ imprisonment on count one and a concurrent
term

of

sixty

months’

imprisonment

on

count

three.

Taiwo

appeals his sentence, arguing that: the district court erred in
applying the four-level enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)
for a firearm with an altered or obliterated serial number; his
sentence

is

otherwise

procedurally

sentence is substantively unreasonable.

unreasonable;

and

his

We affirm.

We review Taiwo’s sentence for reasonableness “under a
deferential

abuse-of-discretion

standard.”

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007).
reasonable

when

the

district

court

Gall

v.

United

A sentence is procedurally
properly

calculates

the

defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, considers the 18 U.S.C.
2

Appeal: 12-4016

Doc: 38

§ 3553(a)

Filed: 08/24/2012

(2006)

sentencing

opportunity

to

sufficiently

explains

“When

rendering

argue

a

for

Pg: 3 of 7

factors,
an

gives

the

appropriate

the

selected

sentence,

the

sentence,

sentence.

district

parties

Id.

court

at

must

an
and

49–51.
make

an

individualized assessment based on the facts presented,” United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation

marks

and

emphasis

omitted),

and

must

“adequately

explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate
review

and

to

promote

Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.

the

perception

of

fair

sentencing.”

“When imposing a sentence within the

Guidelines, however, the explanation need not be elaborate or
lengthy because [G]uidelines sentences themselves are in many
ways tailored to the individual and reflect approximately two
decades

of

close

attention

to

federal

sentencing

policy.”

United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
If

the

sentence

is

free

of

significant

procedural

error, we review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing]
into account the totality of the circumstances.”
at 51.
range,

Gall, 552 U.S.

If the sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines
this

sentence

is

court

applies

substantively

a

presumption
reasonable.

on

appeal

United

that

the

States

v.

Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010).

Such a

presumption is rebutted only by a showing “that the sentence is
3

Appeal: 12-4016

Doc: 38

unreasonable
United

Filed: 08/24/2012

when

States

v.

measured

Pg: 4 of 7

against

Montes-Pineda,

445

the

§ 3553(a)

F.3d

375,

factors.”

379

(4th

Cir.

2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Taiwo first argues that his sentence is procedurally
unreasonable because the district court erred in applying the
four-level

enhancement

under

USSG

§ 2K2.1(b)(4)(B).

In

assessing a challenge to the district court’s application of the
Guidelines, we review de novo the application of the Guidelines
to the facts.

United States v. Sosa-Carabantes, 561 F.3d 256,

259 (4th Cir. 2009).
Analysis of section 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) of the Guidelines
properly begins with the plain language of the Guideline itself.
See United States v. Tigney, 367 F.3d 200, 203 (4th Cir. 2004)
(rejecting

a

party’s

Guideline

interpretation

conflicted with the Guideline’s plain language).

because

it

This section

provides for a four-level enhancement to a defendant’s offense
level

“[i]f

any

serial number.”

firearm . . . had

an

USSG § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B).

altered

or

obliterated

Neither the Guideline

nor its commentary defines the phrase “altered or obliterated.”
However, application of standard dictionary definitions of these
terms

leads

us

to

conclude

that

the

plain

language

of

USSG

§ 2K2.1(b)(4)(B) clearly indicates that the ability to decipher
a

firearm’s

serial

number

need

4

not

be

affected

for

the

Appeal: 12-4016

Doc: 38

Filed: 08/24/2012

Pg: 5 of 7

four-level enhancement to apply.

Accordingly, we reject Taiwo’s

argument in this regard.
Taiwo’s argument that the firearm he possessed did not
have an “altered or obliterated” serial number because a scratch
on

the

firearm’s

undecipherable

serial

to

the

number

naked

did

eye

or

not

render

prevent

law

the

number

enforcement

officials from tracing the number is also without merit.

The

district court’s findings make clear that the scratch was both
purposeful and deep enough that the firearm’s serial number was
rendered more difficult to ascertain accurately than it would
have

been

absent

the

scratch.

Giving

effect

to

the

plain

meaning of the Guideline as expressed by the ordinary meaning of
the

words

1263,

1267

decisions
phrase

used

therein,

(4th

of

the

“altered

Cir.

1993),

Courts
or

United

of

States v.

and

after

Appeal

obliterated”

that

under

Chambers,

985

consideration
have
the

F.2d

of

the

interpreted

the

Guideline,

United

States v. Jones, 643 F.3d 257, 258-59 (8th Cir. 2011) (listing
cases from the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits), we conclude
that the district court did not err in applying the four-level
enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B).
Taiwo also argues that his sentence is procedurally
unreasonable because the district court failed to address and
explain why it rejected his arguments for the imposition of a
below-Guidelines sentence.

Upon review, we conclude that this
5

Appeal: 12-4016

Doc: 38

Filed: 08/24/2012

contention is without merit.
his

education

and

work

Pg: 6 of 7

At sentencing, Taiwo alluded to

history,

licensure

in

a

trade,

and

efforts to support his children without explaining why these
circumstances merited a below-Guidelines sentence.
conclude

that

individualized
§ 3553(a)

the

district

assessment

factors

—

—

and

court
taking

provided
into

adequately

Further, we
an

adequate

account

relevant

explained

the

chosen

sentence.
Finally, we reject as without merit Taiwo’s argument
that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

The argument,

in essence, asks this court to substitute its judgment for that
of the district court.

Even if this court may have weighed the

§ 3553(a) factors differently if we had resolved the case in the
first instance, we will defer to the district court’s decision
that

a

total

sentence

of

sixty-four

months’

achieved the purposes of sentencing in Taiwo’s case.

imprisonment
See United

States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir.) (“[D]istrict
courts

have

weight

to

extremely
be

broad

given

each

discretion
of

the

when

determining

§ 3553(a)

the

factors.”),

cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 187 (2011).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Taiwo’s

motion

dispense

with

to

supplement

oral

argument

is

denied

because

6

as
the

unnecessary.
facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 12-4016

Doc: 38

Filed: 08/24/2012

Pg: 7 of 7

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

7