Court Opinion

ID: 9382162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 21:01:33.674081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.372831
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4259      Doc: 29         Filed: 03/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4259

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DESMOND JERMAINE WHISONANT,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00279-WO-1)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 23, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra
        J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Jacob D. Pryor, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4259      Doc: 29         Filed: 03/23/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

              Desmond Jermaine Whisonant pled guilty, pursuant to a written a plea agreement,

        to distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). The

        district court imposed a 124-month term of imprisonment, sentencing Whisonant below his

        advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,

        Whisonant argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

              We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly

        outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

        standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see United States v. Blue, 877

        F.3d 513, 517 (4th Cir. 2017). This review requires consideration of both the procedural

        and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Blue, 877 F.3d at 517. We have confirmed

        that Whisonant’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.”).

              In assessing substantive reasonableness, we consider “the totality of the

        circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. A sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than

        necessary,” to satisfy the statutory purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). “Any

        sentence that is within or below 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).

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4259      Doc: 29         Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

               Whisonant argues that his sentence is too long and, therefore, is substantively

        unreasonable. At sentencing, Whisonant requested a 75-month sentence. The district court

        considered Whisonant’s mitigation arguments, including, inter alia, his difficult childhood;

        mental health challenges, particularly following the loss of his teenage son; his desire to

        support his pregnant daughter; and the fact that even 75 months’ imprisonment would be

        approximately three times longer than any other sentence he had served. However, after

        engaging with the parties’ arguments, the district court found that a sentence of less than

        124 months’ imprisonment would not adequately account for the seriousness of the offense

        or the needs to promote respect for the law and afford adequate deterrence.

               The district court carefully evaluated the § 3553(a) factors and gave due

        consideration to Whisonant’s mitigation arguments when imposing the below-Guidelines

        sentence. Whisonant has therefore failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness

        afforded his sentence. 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