US v. Tracy McDonald

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00053-CCE-5 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999930720].. [15-4710]

Appeal: 15-4710

Doc: 67

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4710

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRACY ALAN MCDONALD, a/k/a T-Mac,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00053-CCE-5)

Submitted:

September 9, 2016

Decided:

September 16, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jorgelina E. Araneda, ARANEDA LAW FIRM, P.C., Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Clifton T. Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Lauren D.
Emery, Third Year Law Student, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4710

Doc: 67

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
The

district

court

sentenced

Tracy

Alan

McDonald

to

59

months’ imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to
possess

pseudoephedrine

methamphetamine,

in

with

violation

intent

of

21

to

U.S.C.

manufacture
§ 846

(2012).

McDonald argues on appeal that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the district court should have imposed a
probationary sentence.
We

review

a

Finding no error, we affirm.

sentence

for

deferential

abuse-of-discretion

States,

U.S.

552

38,

41

reasonableness,
standard.”

(2007).

Because

applying

Gall

v.

McDonald

“a

United

does

not

assert on appeal any procedural sentencing error, we review only
the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into
account

the

totality

of

the

circumstances,”

id.

at

51,

and

considering “whether the sentencing court abused its discretion
in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards
set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)],” United States v.
Gomez-Jimenez,
omitted).

750

“An

F.3d

370,

appellate

383

court

(4th
owes

Cir.
‘due

2014)

(citation

deference’

to

a

district court’s assessment of the § 3553(a) factors, and mere
disagreement with the sentence below is ‘insufficient to justify
reversal of the district court.’”

United States v. Howard, 773

F.3d 519, 531 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51);

2

Appeal: 15-4710

Doc: 67

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

see id. at 529 n.8; see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 51-52.
sentence

that

[Sentencing]

is

within

Guidelines

or

below

range

is

a

properly

presumptively

“Any

calculated
reasonable.”

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
After reviewing the district court’s thorough explanation
of McDonald’s sentence, we conclude that it did not abuse its
discretion in declining to impose a probationary sentence.

The

district

court

of

the

offense

conduct

noting

the

danger

in

rejected
and

which

McDonald’s

seriousness

McDonald

of

characterization
offense,

the

placed

the

public

manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine.
§ 3553(a)(1), (2)(A).
prior

criminal

through

See 18 U.S.C.

The district court considered McDonald’s

history

but

noted

that

it

was

appropriately

reflected in the calculation of his Guidelines range.
§ 3553(a)(1), (4)(A).

his

See id.

Moreover, the district court recognized

that it had the discretion to impose, and did impose, a belowGuidelines sentence.

See id. § 3553(a)(3).

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

3