US v. John Onley, No. 08-4566 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4566 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN D. ONLEY, a/k/a Jamal, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00062-JPB-JES-1) Submitted: February 25, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. G. Godwin Oyewole, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John D. Onley pleaded guilty to three counts of distribution of crack cocaine and one count of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Onley objected to the relevant conduct drug amount as calculated in the presentence report. At sentencing, Onley testified regarding his relevant conduct and the Government presented evidence in support of the probation officer s findings. The district court adopted the relevant conduct drug amount as set forth in the presentence report, finding Onley s testimony to be patently incredible. The district court declined to apply a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility on account of its determination that Onley s testimony was untruthful. Onley s resulting advisory guideline range was between 108 and 135 sentencing months factors imprisonment. set forth at 18 The court U.S.C. § considered 3553(a) the (2006), particularly remarking on Onley s history and characteristics, § 3553(a)(1), appeals, and arguing imposed a that sentence the of district 108 court months. ignored Onley the reasonableness standard mandated under Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594-95, 597 (2007), failed to fully consider the § 3553(a) factors, and erred acceptance of responsibility. in denying We affirm. 2 a reduction for We review a federal sentence for reasonableness, under an abuse-of-discretion standard. This review requires Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 594, 597. appellate consideration of both Id. at procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. 597. may the A sentence within the properly calculated guideline range be afforded an appellate presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2459, 2462 (2007). Onley s 108-month sentence, which falls at the lowest end of his Moreover, range, guideline range, the district together with § 3553(a) factors, court the when is presumptively appropriately arguments imposing at the reasonable. considered sentencing that and sentence. We the have consistently held that while a district court must consider the statutory factors and explain its sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the record, particularly when the court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range. 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). court s explanation Moreover, relevant in light conduct, for of the the United States v. Johnson, In this regard, the district sentence Onley s district imposed false court denials did not was sufficient. regarding clearly err denying an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 3 § 3E1.1, comment. his in See (n.1(a)) (2007) (a defendant who falsely denies or frivolously contests his relevant conduct has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. ). In imposed is abuse its discretion in sentencing Onley to 108 months in prison. We reasonable sum, and we that accordingly affirm. facts and materials legal before conclude the that district the court sentence did not We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
