US v. Tanya Mack

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00348-WDQ-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999957875].. [15-4582]

Appeal: 15-4582

Doc: 51

Filed: 10/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4582

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TANYA VALENCIA MACK,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00348-WDQ-2)

Submitted:

October 21, 2016

Decided:

October 31, 2016

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard S. Stolker, UPTOWN LAW, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for
Appellant.
Rod
J.
Rosenstein,
United
States
Attorney,
Christopher
J.
Romano,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4582

Doc: 51

Filed: 10/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Tanya Valencia Mack appeals her sentence of 240 months’
imprisonment

following

her

jury

conviction

for

conspiracy

to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and
crack cocaine.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review a criminal sentence “under a deferential abuseof-discretion standard.”
(2007).

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41

We “first ensure that the district court committed no

significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . failing to
consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, . . . or
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.”

Id. at 51.

If there is no significant procedural error, we then consider
the sentence’s substantive reasonableness under “the totality of
the circumstances.”
Mack

does

Id.

not

challenge

but

unreasonable.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).

imposed

a

that

sentence

her

sentence’s

reasonableness

court

argues

her

below

sentence

the

is

procedural

substantively

Because the district
properly

calculated

Guidelines range, we presume that Mack’s sentence is reasonable.
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

A

defendant can rebut this presumption only “by showing that the
sentence

is

unreasonable

§ 3553(a) factors.”

when

measured

Id.
2

against

the

18 U.S.C.

Appeal: 15-4582

Doc: 51

Filed: 10/31/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

After careful review of the record, we conclude that Mack
has not made the showing necessary to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness

we

apply

to

her

below-Guidelines

sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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

3