Court Opinion

ID: 9946995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:00:46.801097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:44.734998
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4294      Doc: 43         Filed: 02/29/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4294

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        THOMAS JONATHAN TODD,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00024-MSN-1)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                 Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Michael C. Sprano, SPRANO LAW FIRM LLP, Fairfax, Virginia, for
        Appellee. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4294      Doc: 43         Filed: 02/29/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Thomas Jonathan Todd appeals from his 192-month sentence imposed on

        resentencing. We previously vacated one of his convictions and remanded for a new

        sentencing. On appeal from his resentencing, Todd contends that the district court abused

        its discretion in imposing the same sentence on remand as Todd’s original sentence, despite

        changed circumstances. Both sentences were downward variant sentences, with the instant

        sentence having a smaller variance than the original sentence. We affirm.

               Todd contends that, because his conviction for use and discharge of a firearm during

        a crime of violence was vacated, it stands to reason that the overall “seriousness of the

        offense[s]” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) would be altered. As such, he asserts that the

        consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 sentencing factors should result in a lower sentence. 1

        He also argues that his Guidelines range on resentencing was lower than his Guidelines

        range at his original sentencing, and the district court erred by not taking this change into

        consideration.

               However, “it would have been improper had the district court used [Todd’s] original

        sentence—rather than his advisory sentencing range—as an initial benchmark at

        sentencing.” United States v. Abed, 3 F.4th 104, 118 (4th Cir. 2021). Notably, Todd does

               1
                 We note that Todd’s firearm conviction was vacated based on an issue of statutory
        construction; the actual facts of Todd’s criminal behavior were unchanged from the
        original sentence.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4294       Doc: 43         Filed: 02/29/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        not argue that the district court’s presumptively reasonable, 2 below-Guidelines sentence

        was unreasonable because the district court erred in balancing the sentencing factors.

        Instead, he focuses only on the comparison between the original sentence and Guidelines

        range and the instant sentence and Guidelines range. Todd did not make this argument

        below, and in any event, the district court did not err in failing to consider this factor. See

        United States v. Pepper, 562 U.S. 476, 507 (2011) (holding that a de novo resentencing

        “wiped the slate clean” and, thus, there was no requirement to apply the same percentage

        departure as had been applied at the original sentencing).

               Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Todd’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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

               2
                A below-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable. United States v.
        Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

                                                      3