UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4401

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL ANTHONY MATA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00507-D-1)

Submitted: September 20, 2023 Decided: October 12, 2023

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant 

Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. 

Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Mallory Brooks Storus, Special 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4401 Doc: 41 Filed: 10/12/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM: 

Michael Anthony Mata pled guilty without a plea agreement to assault on a federal 

officer inflicting bodily injury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), (b). Based on his 

relevant conduct and criminal history, Mata’s Sentencing Guidelines range was 100 to 125

months’ imprisonment. Mata requested a downward variance, noting that he was 

recovering from gunshot injuries at the time of the assault and was frustrated because he 

was having to relearn how to talk. He further noted that he was remorseful, had a 

supportive family, and had ongoing medical issues. The Government requested a 

125-month term of imprisonment. The court denied Mata’s motion for a variance and 

sentenced him to 114 months’ imprisonment, in the middle of the Guidelines range. On 

appeal, Mata asserts that his 114-month within-Guidelines sentence is procedurally 

unreasonable because the court failed to address most of his arguments for a lower 

sentence. He further contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because at 

the time he punched the victim, he was incompetent, committed to a mental health unit, 

wheelchair-bound, and relearning to speak, read, write, and walk after being shot 12 times.

We affirm. 

We review “the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) using an 

abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of ‘whether [the sentence is] inside, just outside, 

or significantly outside the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212 

(4th Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 

(2007)). We are obliged to first “evaluate procedural reasonableness, determining whether 

the district court committed any procedural error, such as improperly calculating the 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4401 Doc: 41 Filed: 10/12/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
3

Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or failing to adequately explain 

the chosen sentence.” Id. (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). “[T]he district court must address 

or consider all non-frivolous reasons presented for imposing a different sentence and 

explain why [it] has rejected those arguments. Importantly, in a routine case, where the 

district court imposes a within-Guidelines sentence, the explanation need not be elaborate 

or lengthy.” United States v. Fowler, 58 F.4th 142, 153 (4th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). 

“[D]istrict courts have extremely broad discretion when determining the weight to be given 

each of the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Jeffrey, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011).

And “[w]hen a district court has fully addressed the defendant’s central thesis during 

sentencing, it need not address separately each supporting data point marshalled for a 

downward variance.” Fowler, 58 F.4th at 153-54 (internal quotation marks omitted).

If “the district court has not committed procedural error,” we then assess the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Nance, 957 F.3d at 212. Under § 3553(a), 

“[t]he court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply 

with the purposes” of the factors set forth in § 3553(a)(2). Substantive reasonableness 

review “takes into account the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the 

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

standards set forth in § 3553(a).” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Any sentence 

below or 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). 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4401 Doc: 41 Filed: 10/12/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Upon review, we find the sentence to be both procedurally and substantively 

reasonable. The court made an individualized assessment of the facts, including Mata’s 

extensive criminal history, the serious orbital fracture and permanent injury suffered by the 

victim who was just trying to do his job, Mata’s substance abuse issues, his family support, 

the gunshot wounds he previously suffered, Mata’s mental health, and the need for a 

serious consequence for such violent conduct. After balancing the factors, the court denied 

the motion for a downward variance due to the need to promote respect for the law, provide 

just punishment, and reflect the seriousness of the conduct. Contrary to Mata’s argument 

on appeal, the court addressed all of counsel’s arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence, 

noting Mata’s gunshot injuries and that he was in a wheelchair, the multiple enhancements 

that applied in the sentence calculation, his work history, and the progress he has made 

since his injury, and granted his request for placement near family as well as for medical, 

substance abuse, and mental health treatment. The court explicitly discussed how it 

balanced the sentencing factors and announced that it had considered all the parties’ 

arguments.

Accordingly, because Mata’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively 

reasonable, we 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4401 Doc: 41 Filed: 10/12/2023 Pg: 4 of 4