US v. Jonathan Cradle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00161-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999166647].. [13-4021]

Appeal: 13-4021

Doc: 24

Filed: 08/06/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4021

Doc: 24

Filed: 08/06/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

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

explain

clearly

the

chosen

erroneous

facts,

sentence.

or

Gall,

failing
552

U.S.

to

adequately

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.
2

United States v. Go,

Appeal: 13-4021

Doc: 24

Filed: 08/06/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

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

provided

weight

at

to

the

sentencing,

and

mitigating

circumstances

therefore

the

district

that

he

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