US v. Melvin Sander

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cr-00049-JPB-JSK-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999605550].. [14-4712]

Appeal: 14-4712

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4712

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MELVIN SANDERS, a/k/a Cool,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00049-JPB-JSK-3)

Submitted:

April 29, 2015

Decided:

June 19, 2015

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott Curnutte, CURNUTTE LAW, Elkins, West Virginia, for
Appellant.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney,
Andrew R. Cogar, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4712

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Melvin Sanders appeals his 120-month prison sentence after
pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute cocaine.

The district court sentenced him

above his advisory Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months.

On

appeal, Sanders contends that the district court procedurally
erred by failing to sufficiently justify its sentence or address
the

parties’

arguments,

and

also

that

his

sentence

is

substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary
to

achieve

(2012).

the

aims

of

sentencing

under

18

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)

We affirm.

We review “the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) using an abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of
‘whether

[the

sentence

is]

inside,

just

significantly outside the Guidelines range.’”

outside,

or

United States v.

Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).

We “must first ensure that the

district court committed no significant procedural error, such
as failing to . . . adequately explain the chosen sentence—
including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines
range.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

reasonable,

we

“tak[ing]

into

including

the

consider
account
extent

its

the
of

If the sentence is procedurally
substantive

totality

any

variance
2

of

the
from

reasonableness,
circumstances,
the

Guidelines

Appeal: 14-4712

Doc: 26

range.”

Filed: 06/19/2015

Id.

“[I]f

the

Pg: 3 of 4

sentence

is

outside

the

Guidelines

range . . . [we] may consider the extent of the deviation, but
must give due deference to the district court’s decision that
the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the
variance.”

Id.

The district court “must make an individualized assessment
based

on

the
the

apply[ing]

facts

presented

relevant

when

§ 3553(a)

imposing

factors

a

to

sentence,

the

specific

circumstances of the case and the defendant, and must state in
open

court

sentence.”

the

particular

Lymas,

781

quotation marks omitted).

F.3d

reasons
at

supporting

113

its

(citation

and

chosen
internal

“In imposing a variance sentence, the

district court must consider the extent of the deviation and
ensure

that

the

justification

is

significantly

support the degree of the variance.”
quotation marks omitted).

compelling

to

Id. (citation and internal

“[A] district court’s explanation of

its sentence need not be lengthy, but the court must offer some
individualized

assessment

justifying

the

sentence

imposed

and

rejection of arguments for a higher or lower sentence based on
§ 3553.”

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The “court’s stated rationale must be tailored to the particular
case

at

review.”

hand

and

adequate

to

permit

meaningful

appellate

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

3

Appeal: 14-4712

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/19/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence
is

procedurally

court

made

presented,
specific

an

and

substantively

individualized

applied

the

circumstances

assessment

relevant
of

the

reasonable.

the

The

based

§ 3553(a)

on

district

the
to

the

the

defendant,

and

reasons

case

supporting

its

and

particular

factors

facts

adequately

explained

sentence.

Among other things, the court found that Sanders’s

criminal history category underrepresented his criminal history.
Sanders acknowledged that his criminal history was “extensive”
but argued that the recidivism rate for a person who is over 50
years old is “vanishingly small.”

However, Sanders was over 50

when he committed the instant crime, and based on his repeated
pattern of returning to illegal activities after incarceration,
the court reasonably rejected Sanders’s argument and found that
the only way to protect the public and society from his illegal
activity was a long period of incarceration.

We also conclude

that the 10-year prison sentence, which is 4.75 years above the
high

end

of

the

advisory

Guidelines

range,

is

substantively

reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4