US v. Richard Kirk Maynor

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00121-BO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999679438].. [15-4045]

Appeal: 15-4045

Doc: 27

Filed: 10/16/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4045

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD KIRK MAYNOR,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00121-BO-1)

Submitted:

September 11, 2015

Decided:

October 16, 2015

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4045

Doc: 27

Filed: 10/16/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Richard
prison

Kirk

sentence,

Maynor
which

appeals
was

his

72-month

imposed

after

upward

variant

pled

guilty,

he

pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of possession of a
stolen

firearm

and

ammunition,

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§§ 922(j), 924(a)(2) (2012).

Maynor’s sole argument is that the

district

erred

court

procedurally

when

it

imposed

an

upward

variant sentence without addressing his non-frivolous arguments
in favor of a within-Guidelines sentence.

Finding no error, we

affirm.
“[I]f

a

party

repeats

on

appeal

a

claim

of

procedural

sentencing error . . . which it has made before the district
court,

we

review

for

abuse

of

discretion”

and

will

reverse

unless we can “conclude that the error was harmless.”

United

States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010).

Thus, where,

as here, “an aggrieved party sufficiently alerts the district
court

of

its

responsibility

to

render

an

individualized

explanation” by drawing arguments from 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (2012)
“for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed,” the
party sufficiently “preserves its claim.”
We

conclude

that

the

district

Id. at 578.

court

did

not

abuse

discretion when it imposed Maynor’s upward variant sentence.

its
A

district court “has flexibility in fashioning a sentence outside
of the Guidelines range,” and need only “set forth enough to
2

Appeal: 15-4045

Doc: 27

Filed: 10/16/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

satisfy the appellate court that it has considered the parties’
arguments and has a reasoned basis” for its decision.
States

v.

Diosdado-Star,

(brackets

omitted).

630

Thus,

F.3d
“a

359,

364

district

(4th

United

Cir.

court’s

2011)

explanation

should provide some indication (1) that the court considered the
§ 3553(a) factors with respect to the particular defendant; and
(2)

that

it

has

also

considered

the

potentially

meritorious

arguments raised by both parties about sentencing[.]”
States

v.

Montes-Pineda,

445

F.3d

375,

380

(4th

United

Cir.

2006)

(internal citations omitted).
“[I]n

determining

whether

there

has

been

an

adequate

explanation, we do not evaluate a court’s sentencing statements
in a vacuum[;]” rather, “[t]he context surrounding a district
court’s explanation may imbue it with enough content for [the
appellate court] to evaluate both whether the court considered
the § 3553(a) factors and whether it did so properly.”

Id. at

381.

The context of a defendant’s sentencing can also make

clear

that

the

district

court

considered

defense

counsel’s

arguments for a different sentence but found them insufficient.
See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007).
At

sentencing,

departure,
J.A. 32.

the

emphasizing

government

Maynor’s

“many

argued

for

unscored

an

upward

convictions.”

Because Maynor’s criminal history category was already

category VI, the government asked the district court to depart
3

Appeal: 15-4045

Doc: 27

Filed: 10/16/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

from an offense level of 17 to 21 to reflect Maynor’s unscored
convictions,
Maynor

which

responded

Guidelines

the

arguments

addressing

each

of

J.A.
for

34-35.

a

within-

those

unscored

convictions and arguing against using them to depart.

J.A. 36-

37.

sentence,

catalogued.

non-frivolous

with

government

The court responded: “You don’t have to go through all of

that.

You

can

do

it

if

influence me at all.
upwardly depart . . .”

you

want

but

that’s

I’m going to vary.

not

going

to

I’m not going to

J.A. 37.

Reviewing this statement in context, we conclude that the
district

court

found

it

unnecessary

for

Maynor

to

rebut

the

government on each unscored conviction because the court had
decided to reject the government’s departure motion.

We further

conclude that the district court was engaged during Maynor’s
sentencing

hearing

and

said

enough

to

satisfy

us

that

it

considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for
imposing the upward variant sentence.
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