Court Opinion

ID: 9391680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 21:00:31.442308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:43.841533
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4453      Doc: 18         Filed: 05/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4453

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ISAIAH OLUFEMI OGUNYEMI,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cr-00044-TDS-1)

        Submitted: March 31, 2023                                            Decided: May 1, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Ira Knight, Assistant Federal Public
        Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Mary Ann Courtney,
        Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4453      Doc: 18         Filed: 05/01/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Isaiah Olufemi Ogunyemi pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession

        with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),

        (b)(1)(C). Based on his relevant conduct and criminal history, Ogunyemi’s Sentencing

        Guidelines range was 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment. Ogunyemi requested a downward

        variance noting that a pending bill in the United States Congress would address the racial

        disparity in sentencing between cocaine and crack cocaine offenses. The Government

        requested a 54-month term of imprisonment. The court denied Ogunyemi’s motion for a

        variance and sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the Guidelines

        range. On appeal, Ogunyemi asserts that the court did not give appropriate weight to the

        racial disparity in cocaine sentencing. We affirm.

               We review “the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) using an

        abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of ‘whether [the sentence is] inside, just outside,

        or significantly outside the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212

        (4th Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41

        (2007)). We are obliged to first “evaluate procedural reasonableness, determining whether

        the district court committed any procedural error, such as improperly calculating the

        Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or failing to adequately explain

        the chosen sentence.” Id. (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). “[T]he district court must address

        or consider all non-frivolous reasons presented for imposing a different sentence and

        explain why [it] has rejected those arguments. Importantly, in a routine case, where the

        district court imposes a within-Guidelines sentence, the explanation need not be elaborate

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4453      Doc: 18         Filed: 05/01/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        or lengthy.” United States v. Fowler, 58 F.4th 142, 153 (4th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up).

        “[D]istrict courts have extremely broad discretion when determining the weight to be given

        each of the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Jeffrey, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011).

        And “[w]hen a district court has fully addressed the defendant’s central thesis during

        sentencing, it need not address separately each supporting data point marshalled for a

        downward variance.” Fowler, 58 F.4th at 153-54 (internal quotation marks omitted).

               If “the district court has not committed procedural error,” we then assess the

        substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Nance, 957 F.3d at 212. Under § 3553(a),

        “[t]he court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply

        with the purposes” of the factors set forth in § 3553(a)(2). Substantive reasonableness

        review “takes into account 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 § 3553(a).” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Any sentence

        below or within “a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. 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.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d

        295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

               We conclude that the record demonstrates that the district court considered the

        § 3553(a) sentencing factors in light of Ogunyemi’s argument for a below-Guidelines

        sentence. The court first determined that it would not choose a sentence based on pending

        legislation, not knowing what would ultimately become law.             The court analyzed

        Ogunyemi’s circumstances, criminal history, and the danger he posed to the public, while

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4453      Doc: 18        Filed: 05/01/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        observing that prior arrests and convictions had not deterred Ogunyemi from engaging in

        more criminal conduct. The court also noted that Ogunyemi had more than one second

        chance and knew right from wrong.

               Accordingly, because Ogunyemi’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively

        reasonable, we affirm. 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

                                                    4