US v. Charles Manu

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00060-JPB-JES-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999974502]. [16-4407]

Appeal: 16-4407

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4407

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHARLES MANU,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (5:15-cr-00060-JPB-JES-1)

Submitted:

November 17, 2016

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

KING

and

November 23, 2016

DUNCAN,

Circuit

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brendan S. Leary, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, David J. Perri, Assistant United States
Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4407

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Charles

Manu

access

devices,

(2012),

and

was

pled
18

guilty
U.S.C.

sentenced

to

possession

of

§§ 1029(a)(3),

to

24

months

unauthorized

1029(c)(1)(A)(i)

in

prison.

He

appeals, challenging the reasonableness of his sentence.

now
We

affirm.
The

record

determined

that

reflects
Manu’s

that

the

Guidelines

district
range

court

was

6-12

properly
months,

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors and
the

arguments

of

the

parties,

and

provided

a

sufficiently

individualized assessment based on the facts of the case.

The

court explained that it had varied above the Guidelines range
because Manu had not cooperated fully with investigators, had
recently committed a similar offense in Kentucky, and had not
been truthful with his probation officer about his claimed past
employment.

We conclude that the sentence is procedurally and

substantively reasonable.

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th
Cir. 2009).
We

therefore

affirm.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2