US v. Donnell Mann, No. 08-4360 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4360 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONNELL MANN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00444-WDQ-2) Submitted: August 10, 2009 Decided: August 25, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani, Staff Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michael C. Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donnell Mann pled guilty to a Hobbs Act conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2006) (Count 2); to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006) (Count 3); and to possession of firearms in furtherance of a crime of violence and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West Supp. 2009) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 5). Despite the fact that Mann s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 262-327 months, the district court sentenced him to 240 months of imprisonment: 180-month concurrent sentences for Counts 2 and 3 and a 60-month consecutive sentence for Count 5. On appeal, Mann alleges that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We review sentences discretion standard. a deferential abuse-of- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 590 (2007). or substantive error. under We find no significant procedural Id. at 597; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). We note that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness on appeal to a within-Guidelines sentence. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); see Nelson v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 890, 892 (2009) (emphasizing that the presumption of reasonableness 2 accorded a within- Guidelines sentence is an appellate court presumption than a presumption enjoyed by a sentencing court). rather Thus, we decline to find an abuse of discretion in this instance where a district court exercised its discretion to sentence a defendant below that range. See United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 434-36 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.