Court Opinion

ID: 9388549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 21:00:54.308164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:20.748807
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4298      Doc: 22         Filed: 04/19/2023    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4298

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MATTHEW LEVITICUS MURPHY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cr-00104-WO-1)

        Submitted: April 10, 2023                                         Decided: April 19, 2023

        Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Ames C. Chamberlin, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
        Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney,
        Veronica L. Edmisten, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4298       Doc: 22         Filed: 04/19/2023      Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Matthew Leviticus Murphy pled guilty to two

        counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g),

        924(a)(2) (2018) 1 (Counts 1 and 3). These offenses arose out of separate incidents that

        occurred two months apart. Murphy possessed the gun in Count 1 on November 21, 2020,

        when he forced his way into a home, held a family at gunpoint, and fired a shot into the

        floor. Murphy possessed the firearm in Count 3 on January 31, 2021, in connection with

        controlled substance trafficking.

               The district court declined Murphy’s request for a sentence below the advisory

        Sentencing Guidelines range and instead sentenced Murphy to consecutive 120-month

        terms of imprisonment on each count, for an aggregate within-Guidelines sentence of 240

        months. On appeal, Murphy asserts that his sentence is unreasonable, arguing that it is

        greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

               We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We first “ensure that

        the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as . . . improperly

        calculating[] the Guidelines range . . . , failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting

        a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen

               1
                 Section 924(a)(2) was amended and no longer provides the penalty for § 922(g)
        convictions. See Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, Pub. L. No. 117-159, § 12004(c), 136
        Stat. 1313, 1329 (2022). The new penalty provision does not apply in this case, however,
        because Murphy’s offenses were committed before the June 25, 2022, amendment to the
        statute.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4298       Doc: 22          Filed: 04/19/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

        sentence.” United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation

        marks omitted). “If we determine that the district court has not committed procedural error,

        only then do we proceed to assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.” United

        States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020). “The ultimate question . . . is whether

        the sentence is ‘sufficient, but not greater than necessary’ in light of the factors identified

        in § 3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010)

        (quoting Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 111 (2007)).

               Here, the district court properly calculated the advisory Sentencing Guidelines

        range, provided the parties with an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence,

        considered the § 3553(a) factors, did not rely on clearly erroneous facts, and thoroughly

        explained its sentence. We therefore conclude that Murphy’s sentence is procedurally

        reasonable.

               Substantive reasonableness, the second step of 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).’” Nance, 957 F.3d at 212 (quoting Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d at 216)).

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

        [substantively] reasonable.” United States v. Bennett, 986 F.3d 389, 401 (4th Cir. 2021)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). “On appeal, 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Murphy argues

        that several of the § 3553(a) factors justify a below-Guidelines sentence, including his

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4298      Doc: 22         Filed: 04/19/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        history and characteristics, see § 3553(a)(1); the nature and circumstances of the offenses

        see id.; the need for the sentence to provide adequate deterrence, see § 3553(a)(2)(B); and

        the need for the sentence to protect the public, see § 3553(a)(2)(C).

               At the sentencing hearing, the district court considered Murphy’s history and

        characteristics, engaging in an active colloquy with counsel and Murphy’s witnesses about

        Murphy’s extremely difficult childhood and his mental health issues.            The court

        acknowledged the challenge of reconciling these mitigating factors with the need for

        incapacitation when fashioning Murphy’s sentence. As for the nature and circumstances

        of Murphy’s offenses, the court took into account the situation surrounding each § 922(g)

        offense. The court found that, standing alone, the conduct giving rise to Count 3 was very

        serious. But, in the court’s view, the seriousness of that offense was exacerbated by the

        fact that Murphy committed this offense after engaging in the disturbingly violent conduct

        that gave rise to his conviction on Count 1. The court found that Murphy’s commission of

        the January 2021 firearm offense undermined his expressions of remorse for his conduct

        related to the November 2020 firearm offense.

               Turning to the need for the sentence to provide adequate deterrence and to protect

        the public, the district court considered Murphy’s arguments that his criminal conduct was

        rooted in his adverse childhood experiences and mental health issues and could be

        addressed through psychological treatment. However, the court deemed the data too

        generalized and the testimony too general to be able to conclude that such treatment would

        be effective for Murphy. Furthermore, the court emphasized the violent nature of the Count

        1 offense and opined that Murphy’s commission of a second firearm offense two months

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4298      Doc: 22         Filed: 04/19/2023      Pg: 5 of 5

        later demonstrated his willingness to continue engaging in violence, reflecting a significant

        need for a sentence that would protect the public.

               After thoughtful consideration of the parties’ arguments, the district court reached

        a well-reasoned conclusion grounded in § 3553(a) factors that, notwithstanding Murphy’s

        exceptionally troubling childhood experiences and his mental health issues, a below-

        Guidelines sentence would not satisfy the sentencing goals of § 3553(a). We conclude

        that Murphy failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-

        Guidelines sentence, and we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s

        determination that a 240-month sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary.

               Accordingly, we affirm the criminal 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

                                                     5