Court Opinion

ID: 9902065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 21:00:32.311926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:44.266797
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4148      Doc: 25         Filed: 11/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4148

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MAYLIK WATSON, a/k/a Leak,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:21-cr-00032-10)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 21, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Tracy Weese, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. William S.
        Thompson, United States Attorney, Monica D. Coleman, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4148      Doc: 25         Filed: 11/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Maylik Watson pled guilty without a plea agreement to distribution of 50 grams or

        more of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers, in violation of

        21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced Watson to 240 months’ imprisonment,

        a sentence below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Watson argues

        that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

               We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

        Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.

        Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). In

        conducting this review, we must first ensure that the sentence is procedurally reasonable,

        “consider[ing] whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory

        [G]uidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence,

        considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected

        sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We have confirmed that Watson’s

        sentence is procedurally reasonable. See United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th

        Cir. 2019).

               If the sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” we then review it for

        substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Gall

        v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater

        than necessary,” to satisfy the statutory purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). “Any

        sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively

        [substantively] reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4148      Doc: 25          Filed: 11/21/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        “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.” Id.

               Watson argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district

        court did not give adequate weight or consideration to several of the relevant factors in

        Watson’s background, instead giving excessive weight to the circumstances of his offense.

        However, the record shows that the district court considered the sentencing factors raised

        by defense counsel and ultimately granted a downward variance in light of those factors.

        Contrary to counsel’s assertion, the court properly balanced the factors on which Watson

        relied against those proffered by the Government, including Watson’s role in the offense

        and obstruction of justice, to decline defense counsel’s request for an even greater variance.

        Our review convinces us that the district court carefully evaluated the § 3553(a) factors

        and gave due consideration to Watson’s mitigating arguments when imposing its sentence.

        In light of the “extremely broad discretion” afforded to a district court “in determining the

        weight to be given each of the § 3553(a) factors” in imposing sentence, United States v.

        Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011), Watson fails to rebut the presumption of

        reasonableness afforded his below-Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we conclude that

        Watson’s sentence is substantively reasonable.

               We therefore affirm the judgment. 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

                                                      3