Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04538/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04538-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allen Wendell McNeil
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4538

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALLEN WENDELL MCNEIL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00436-D-1)

Submitted: October 28, 2020 Decided: November 10, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief Appellate Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4538 Doc: 38 Filed: 11/10/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Allen Wendell McNeil entered guilty pleas to possession with intent to distribute 

marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D) (Count 1); possession of a firearm in 

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (Count 2); and 

possession of a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (Count 3). The district 

court sentenced McNeil to concurrent terms of 54 months on Counts 1 and 3 and imposed 

on Count 2 the mandatory minimum of five years, to be served consecutively, for a total 

term of incarceration of 114 months. On appeal, McNeil challenges the substantive 

reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm. 

We review a criminal sentence imposed by a district court for reasonableness “under 

a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 

(2007). This review entails consideration of both the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence.*

 Id. at 51. If the district court did not procedurally err, we

then assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. Substantive reasonableness 

review takes into account “the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing 

court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards 

set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 176 (4th Cir. 2020) 

(internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, No. 20-5026, 2020 WL 

* We must review the procedural reasonableness of a sentence before considering 

its substantive reasonableness, even when the parties do not raise a procedural challenge. 

United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). The record discloses that 

the sentence is procedurally reasonable. 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4538 Doc: 38 Filed: 11/10/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

5883437 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2020). “Any sentence that is within . . . a properly calculated 

Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted 

by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation 

omitted). “[D]istrict courts have extremely broad discretion when determining the weight 

to be given each of the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th 

Cir. 2011). 

McNeil contends that the district court did not adequately take into account his 

difficult upbringing and the length of his prior sentences for his state convictions, and he 

asserts that a sentence below the Sentencing Guidelines range would have “been sufficient, 

but not greater than necessary.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). McNeil’s arguments amount to a 

disagreement with the weight the district court gave each of the § 3553(a) factors. We have 

reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

balancing the § 3553(a) factors or in arriving at the chosen sentence. McNeil has failed to 

overcome the presumption of reasonableness. 

Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We deny McNeil’s motion to file a 

pro se supplemental brief. See United States v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th 

Cir. 2011). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4538 Doc: 38 Filed: 11/10/2020 Pg: 3 of 3