UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4549

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL SHAWNDALE DAVIS, a/k/a Diddy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cr-00024-JPB-JPM-1)

Submitted: August 22, 2024 Decided: August 26, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. William 

Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Clayton J. Reid, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4549 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Michael Shawndale Davis pleaded guilty to possession of ammunition by a felon,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court imposed an upward variant 

sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Davis argues that the sentence is 

substantively unreasonable. We affirm. 

We review a sentence, “‘whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the 

[Sentencing] Guidelines range[,] under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’” 

United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). “First, we evaluate the procedural reasonableness, 

determining whether the district court committed any procedural error, such as improperly 

calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, or 

failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 

212 (4th Cir. 2020). If we find no procedural error, we then “proceed to assess the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence.” Id. 

In considering the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, “we examine 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 for in § 3553(a).” Id. at 

215 (cleaned up). “Where, as here, the sentence is outside the advisory Guidelines range, 

we must consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its 

decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to the extent of the divergence from 

the sentencing range.” Id. “That said, district courts have extremely broad discretion when 

determining the weight to be given each of the § 3553(a) factors, and the fact that a variance 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4549 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

sentence deviates, even significantly, from the Guidelines range does not alone render it 

presumptively unreasonable.” Id. (cleaned up). “Instead, we must give due deference to 

the district court's decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the 

variance.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Davis argues that the district court’s sentence was unreasonable because the court 

failed to consider the statutory sentencing goals and did not meaningfully consider Davis’ 

personal history and mitigation arguments. However, the district court thoroughly 

considered the purposes of sentencing in imposing the upward variance, highlighting 

Davis’ criminal history and the need to deter Davis from engaging in similar conduct. 

Additionally, the court explicitly considered Davis’ mental health and substance abuse 

issues, but nevertheless determined that the § 3553(a) factors justified Davis’ sentence. 

Based on a totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the sentence is reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral 

arguments 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: 23-4549 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 3 of 3