US v. Carl McPhaul

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:12-cr-00010-H-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999094588]. [12-4759]

Appeal: 12-4759

Doc: 27

Filed: 04/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4759

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARL EUGENE MCPHAUL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (7:12-cr-00010-H-1)

Submitted:

April 15, 2013

Decided:

April 25, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Devon L. Donahue,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4759

Doc: 27

Filed: 04/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Carl E. McPhaul appeals the district court’s judgment
imposing

a

262-month

career

offender

sentence

following

his

guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute a quantity
of

cocaine

and

a

quantity

of

marijuana,

in

violation

of

21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and to possession of a firearm in
furtherance

of

a

drug

trafficking

U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006).

crime,

in

violation

of

18

McPhaul argues that his sentence is

procedurally unreasonable because the district court ignored his
nonfrivolous

arguments

for

a

below-Guidelines

sentence

failed to adequately explain the sentence imposed.
Because
adequacy

of

the

McPhaul
district

preserved
court’s

his

We affirm.

challenge

explanation,

and

we

to

the

review

for

abuse of discretion and must reverse if we find error, unless we
determine that it was harmless.
572,

578-79

(4th

district

court

sentence,

it

Cir.

imposes
must

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d

2010).
an

place

“Regardless

above,
on

below,

the

or

record

of

whether

the

within-Guidelines
an

individualized

assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it.”
United

States

(internal

v.

Carter,

quotation

marks

564

F.3d

325,

omitted).

330

(4th

However,

Cir.
“it

is

2009)
not

necessary that a court issue a comprehensive, detailed opinion,”
but the explanation must be sufficient to allow for “meaningful
appellate review.”

United States v. Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330,
2

Appeal: 12-4759

343

Doc: 27

(4th

Filed: 04/25/2013

Cir.

2013)

Pg: 3 of 5

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

Further, the sentencing court “need not robotically tick through
§

3553(a)’s

every

subsection;”

it

only

must

provide

“some

indication” that it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors

with

respect

to

the

defendant

before

it

and

also

considered any nonfrivolous arguments raised by the parties at
sentencing.

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380

(4th Cir. 2006); see Carter, 564 F.3d at 328.
McPhaul first claims that the sentence imposed by the
district court is procedurally unreasonable because the court
did not specifically address any of counsel’s arguments other
than merely noting McPhaul’s status as a career offender.

Here,

the district court listened to defense counsel’s arguments for a
downward variance based on the § 3553(a) factors — specifically,
that McPhaul had a history of abuse, poverty, and drug addiction
and that McPhaul’s actions during the instant offense did not
warrant

a

262-month

sentence.

Although

the

district

court

acknowledged that the instant conduct would not have normally
warranted

a

262-month

sentence,

the

court

stated

that

“[McPhaul]’s paying the price for the career offender status”
(J.A.

51) ∗

and

declined

to

vary

from

the

Guidelines

range,

emphasizing that McPhaul had amassed an average of about one
∗

“J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties.

3

Appeal: 12-4759

Doc: 27

conviction

a

Filed: 04/25/2013

year

for

Pg: 4 of 5

seventeen

years.

We

conclude

that,

although the district court did not specifically address each of
defense counsel’s arguments, the court’s comments demonstrated
that it found the arguments unpersuasive in light of McPhaul’s
lengthy criminal history and his status as a career offender.
McPhaul also argues that the district court did not
adequately explain its sentence and that his case is similar to
one of the defendants in Lynn, see 592 F.3d at 583-85.
disagree.

In

imposing

the

262-month

sentence,

the

We

district

court stated that the findings in the presentence report were
“credible

and

reliable”

(J.A.

60),

that

it

calculated

the

Guidelines range from those findings, and that it considered the
§

3553(a)

factors

extensive

criminal

as

well.

history

The
and

court

status

mentioned

as

a

McPhaul’s

career

offender

during defense counsel’s arguments for a downward variance.
18

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(1).

The

court

also

stated

that

See
it

considered McPhaul’s background and the nature of the instant
offense.

See id.

The court further recommended that McPhaul be

“exposed to the most intense drug treatment possible during the
term
§

of

his

incarceration.”

3553(a)(2)(D).

While

the

(J.A.
district

62);
court

see
did

18
not

U.S.C.
cite

to

specific § 3553(a) factors in explaining the sentence, it was
not required to do so.

See United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d

652, 658 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating that reasons articulated for
4

Appeal: 12-4759

Doc: 27

Filed: 04/25/2013

Pg: 5 of 5

given sentence need not be “couched in the precise language of
§ 3553(a),” so long as “reasons can be matched to a factor
appropriate for consideration . . . and [are] clearly tied to
[defendant’s]
that

the

particular

district

considered

the

nonfrivolous

court

arguments

Accordingly,
with

contentions

are

provided

§ 3553(a)

procedurally reasonable.

dispense

situation”).

oral

We

“some

factors

and

indication”

and

that

therefore

defense

McPhaul’s

conclude
that

it

counsel’s

sentence

is

See Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 380.

we

affirm

argument

adequately

the

criminal

because

presented

in

the
the

judgment.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5