Court Opinion

ID: 9396233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 21:00:47.703104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:15.333874
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4581      Doc: 35         Filed: 05/18/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4581

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CRAIG DEMETRICE MCNEILL,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00098-BO-1)

        Submitted: May 5, 2023                                            Decided: May 18, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Rudolph A. Ashton, III, DUNN PITTMAN SKINNER & CUSHMAN,
        PLLC, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States
        Attorney, David A. Bragdon, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4581      Doc: 35         Filed: 05/18/2023      Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Craig Demetrice McNeill appeals his conviction and 84-month sentence imposed

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

        U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). McNeill’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

        U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning

        whether the district court correctly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range. Though

        notified of his right to do so, McNeill did not file a pro se supplemental brief. After

        conducting our Anders review, we directed the parties to file supplemental briefs

        addressing whether the district court adequately explained its sentence and its reasons for

        rejecting McNeill’s sentencing arguments.         For the reasons that follow, we affirm

        McNeill’s conviction but vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.

               We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

        standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). First, we must determine whether

        the sentence is procedurally reasonable. United States v. Webb, 965 F.3d 262, 270 (4th

        Cir. 2020). In doing so, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the

        defendant’s Guidelines 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. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51.

               Anders counsel questions whether the district court correctly assessed three criminal

        history points for McNeill’s prior homicide conviction; started with a base offense level of

        24; and applied a three-level enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight, U.S.

        Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.2 (2018). Because McNeill did not raise these issues

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4581       Doc: 35          Filed: 05/18/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

        below, we review only for plain error. United States v. Kobito, 994 F.3d 696, 701 (4th Cir.

        2021). We discern none.

               First, McNeill correctly received three criminal history points for his prior homicide

        conviction: though he committed the homicide 18 years prior to the instant offense, he did

        not complete his prior sentence until a year before the § 922(g)(1) violation. See USSG

        § 4A1.2(e)(1) (providing that prior sentence exceeding 13 months is countable if served

        during 15-year period preceding commencement of instant offense). Second, the district

        court properly calculated a base offense level of 24 because McNeill had more than one

        prior felony conviction for a crime of violence or controlled substance offense. USSG

        § 2K2.1(a)(2). And third, the court did not plainly err in applying the dangerous flight

        enhancement, given that, while fleeing from police, McNeill ran four stop signs, reached

        speeds of roughly 25 miles per hour over the speed limit, and crashed into a mailbox and

        utility pole located at a residential address. See United States v. Burnley, 988 F.3d 184,

        191 (4th Cir. 2021) (explaining that, for dangerous flight enhancement, “[s]omething more

        [than just vehicular flight] is required”).

               Turning to the issues on which we directed supplemental briefing, “[a] sentencing

        court’s explanation is sufficient if it, although somewhat briefly, outlines the defendant’s

        particular history and characteristics not merely in passing or after the fact, but as part of

        its analysis of the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)] factors . . . .” United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513,

        518 (4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). In other words, the court “must conduct an individualized

        assessment” by applying the § 3353(a) factors “to the particular defendant” being

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4581        Doc: 35          Filed: 05/18/2023     Pg: 4 of 5

        sentenced. United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212-13 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation

        marks omitted).

                 Moreover, “[w]here a defendant (or prosecutor) presents nonfrivolous reasons for

        imposing a sentence outside the Guidelines, the sentencing judge must address or consider

        those arguments and explain why he has rejected them.” United States v. Powers, 40 F.4th

        129, 137 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). As long as the “district court

        addresses [the] defendant’s ‘central thesis,’” an exhaustive explanation is not required. Id.

        Still, some explanation is necessary, as we may not “guess at which arguments the court

        might have considered or assume that the court has silently adopted arguments presented

        by a party.” Nance, 957 F.3d at 214 (internal quotation marks omitted).

                 Prior to imposing sentence, the district court stated:

                 Taking into account the 3553(a) factors, and reviewing those against
                 [McNeill’s] pre-sentence report, the seriousness of the crime and his criminal
                 history, the Court has taken all of that into account and finds that a mid- to
                 high-level Guideline sentence is an appropriate range within which to
                 sentence the defendant in this case.

        (Joint Appendix 31). Then, without further elaboration, the court sentenced McNeill to 84

        months’ imprisonment—slightly under the high end of the 70-to-87-month Guidelines

        range.

                 From this record, we cannot discern why the district court opted for an 84-month

        sentence after indicating that a mid-level Guidelines sentence might also be appropriate.

        Nor can we find, based on the court’s terse sentencing explanation, that the court conducted

        an individualized assessment of McNeill or applied the § 3553(a) factors specifically to

        him. Finally, we conclude that the court did not respond to, or indicate its consideration

                                                        4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4581      Doc: 35         Filed: 05/18/2023      Pg: 5 of 5

        of, McNeill’s mitigation argument, in which he asserted that his difficulty adjusting to life

        outside prison and lack of parental support militated in favor of a low-end Guidelines

        sentence.

               Accordingly, although we affirm McNeill’s conviction, we vacate his sentence and

        remand for resentencing. 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 IN PART,
                                                                                VACATED IN PART,
                                                                                 AND REMANDED

                                                     5