NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________ No. 14

- 1650

________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. MARK CLEVETT,

Appellant

________________ Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Crim in al Action No. 2

- 12

- cr - 00590

- 001) District Judge: Honorable Kevin McNulty

________________ Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

on January 16, 2015 Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : January 11, 2016 )

________________ OPINION *

________________ ROTH, Circuit Judge

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

After pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1349, Mark Clevett was sentenced to 24 m onths ’ impr ison ment and three years ’ supervised release

. Clevett appeals the length of his sentence, arguing that the District Court committed procedural error by failing to consider certain unique sentencing factors
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and substant ive error by imposing an unreasonable sentence

. We will affirm. We review the District Court’s imposition of a sentence for abuse of discretion. 1 A sentence is procedurally sound whe re the sentencing court creates a record that
demonstrates meaningful c onsideration of the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
and provides adequate reasons for the sentence s o that this court can engage in meaningful review

. 2 A sentence is substantively sound “unless no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the district court provided.” 3 Absent procedural error, w e are “highly deferential” to the sentencing court’s application of the § 3553(a) factors. 4 Clevett argues that the District Court did not meaningfully appreciate his role in taking care of his children. Two of his children suffer from significant physical, mental, and emotional impairments. The District Court was presented with evidence from family members and medical professionals , de monstrating that Clevett was an attentive father and took an active role in addressing his children’s special needs.

1 United States v. Tomko , 562 F.3d 558, 564 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc)

. 2 United States v. Ali , 508 F.3d 136, 153

- 54 (3d Cir. 2007). 3 Tomko , 562 F.3d at 568. 4 United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 543 (3d Cir. 2007)3

T he District Court expressly cited “the defendant’s need to be present for children
wh o have special needs” and noted that incarcerating Clevett “would probably have a negative impact on the family’s ability to deal properly with their children’s problems.” After referring to Clevett’s family situation as a “major issue,” the District Court departed
from the calculated Sentencing G uideline s range o f 33 to 41 months’ imprisonment, and impos ed a 24 month sentence of imprisonment

. T he District Court’s downward departure from the Guidelines range was predicated on recognizing that Clevett “should not be removed from the family situation for lo nger than is necessary.” The District
Court committed no procedural error because Clevett’s unique family situation was the
very r eason for his below

- Guidelines sentence

. The District Court committed no substantive error because we cannot say that a 24 m onth sentence and a downward departure from the G uidelines was excessive in this case

. The District Court clearly accounted for Clevett’s special family circumstances. Clevett’s d issatisfaction with the length of his incarceration is not grounds to overt urn his

sentence

. We will affirm

.