Court Opinion

ID: 9367472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 21:00:43.777147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:00.530081
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 18-4401      Doc: 31         Filed: 04/19/2019     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 18-4401

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        PHYTEAF PHEQUAN MCCORMICK,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:17-cr-00120-FL-1)

        Submitted: March 29, 2019                                         Decided: April 19, 2019

        Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public
        Defender, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 18-4401        Doc: 31        Filed: 04/19/2019    Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Phyteaf Phequan McCormick appeals the 90-month sentence imposed following

        his guilty plea to possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18

        U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2012). On appeal, McCormick argues that the district court’s

        upward variant sentence—33 months above the high end of the Sentencing Guidelines

        range—is substantively unreasonable. * We affirm.

               In determining whether McCormick’s above-Guidelines-range sentence is

        substantively reasonable, “we 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.” United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d

        938, 944 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). “While a district court’s

        explanation for the sentence must support the degree of the variance, it need not find

        extraordinary circumstances to justify a deviation from the Guidelines.” United States v.

        Spencer, 848 F.3d 324, 327 (4th Cir. 2017) (citations and internal quotation marks

        omitted). Because our review is ultimately for an abuse of discretion, see Gall v. United

        States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), “we give due deference to the district court’s decision that

        the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance,”

        United States v. Zuk, 874 F.3d 398, 409 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks

        omitted).     “[E]ven [if] we might reasonably conclude that a different sentence is

               *
                   McCormick does not contend that his Guidelines range was miscalculated.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 18-4401      Doc: 31         Filed: 04/19/2019      Pg: 3 of 3

        appropriate, that conclusion, standing alone, is an insufficient basis to vacate the district

        court’s chosen sentence.” Id. (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).

               Our review of the record confirms that McCormick’s sentence is substantively

        reasonable.   In imposing an upward variant sentence, the district court considered

        McCormick’s criminal history, the offense conduct, and the need for the sentence

        imposed to promote respect for the law, deter McCormick from engaging in future

        criminal conduct, and protect the community.         McCormick argues that his offense

        conduct and criminal history should not have been used to support the upward variance as

        such factors should be principally accounted for in the Guidelines range. This assertion

        is misplaced because “a fact that is taken into account in computing a Guidelines range is

        not excluded from consideration when determining whether the Guideline[s] sentence

        adequately serves the four purposes of § 3553(a)(2).” United States v. Bollinger, 798

        F.3d 201, 221 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 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