Court Opinion

ID: 9960027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-14 21:00:31.731992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:06.476153
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4364      Doc: 23         Filed: 04/12/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4364

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        SUMMER NICHOLE MCCROSKEY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cr-00220-RDB-1)

        Submitted: March 11, 2024                                         Decided: April 12, 2024

        Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Wesley P. Page, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellant
        Counsel, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia,
        for Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Paul E. Budlow, Assistant United
        States Attorney, Colleen E. McGuinn, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4364       Doc: 23        Filed: 04/12/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Summer Nichole McCroskey pleaded guilty, without a written plea agreement, to

        conspiracy to commit sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e);

        seven counts of sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); five

        counts of distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2); and

        three counts of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        § 2252A(a)(5)(B).       The district court sentenced McCroskey within the applicable

        Sentencing Guidelines range to 960 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, McCroskey argues

        that this within-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court

        did not adequately account for her own experience as a victim of abuse, traumatic

        childhood, and history of mental illness. We affirm.

               We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard.”     United States v. Williams, 5 F.4th 500, 505 (4th Cir. 2021).

        “Substantive-reasonableness review requires us to consider 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 [18 U.S.C.]

        § 3553(a).” United States v. Reed, 58 F.4th 816, 820 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation

        marks omitted). “This review is highly deferential” and “should not be overly searching,

        because it is not the role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the

        sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence.” United States v. Smith,

        75 F.4th 459, 466 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, “[a]ny

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

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4364       Doc: 23         Filed: 04/12/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        [substantively] reasonable,” and “[s]uch a presumption can only be rebutted by showing

        that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors.” United

        States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

               McCroskey has not rebutted the presumption that her within-Guidelines sentence is

        substantively reasonable. ∗ The district court crafted a sentence that carefully considered

        the gravity of the offense, the deterrent effect of a lengthy sentence, and the need to protect

        the public—especially children—from McCroskey. Further, the court did not ignore

        McCroskey’s mitigation arguments. Contrary to McCroskey’s argument on appeal, the

        court discussed her history of abuse and mental illness. Even in light of McCroskey’s

        troubled background, the court still concluded that a lengthy sentence was appropriate. On

        this record, we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in selecting

        McCroskey’s sentence, and we decline McCroskey’s invitation to reweigh the § 3553(a)

        factors.

               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

               ∗
                We have confirmed that McCroskey’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. See
        United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (“[W]e are required to analyze
        procedural reasonableness before turning to substantive reasonableness.”).

                                                      3