Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04582/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04582-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tanya Valencia Mack
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 3
2

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

(2007). 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.” Id.

Mack does not challenge her sentence’s procedural 

reasonableness but argues that her sentence is substantively 

unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Because the district 

court imposed a sentence below the 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 when measured against the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors.” Id.

Appeal: 15-4582 Doc: 51 Filed: 10/31/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
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. 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

Appeal: 15-4582 Doc: 51 Filed: 10/31/2016 Pg: 3 of 3