US v. Carl McPhaul, No. 12-4759 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4759 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARL EUGENE MCPHAUL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:12-cr-00010-H-1) Submitted: April 15, 2013 Decided: April 25, 2013 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Devon L. Donahue, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carl E. McPhaul appeals the district court s judgment imposing a 262-month career offender sentence following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine and a quantity of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006). crime, in violation of 18 McPhaul argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court ignored his nonfrivolous arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence failed to adequately explain the sentence imposed. Because adequacy of the McPhaul district preserved court s his We affirm. challenge explanation, and we to the review for abuse of discretion and must reverse if we find error, unless we determine that it was harmless. 572, 578-79 (4th district court sentence, it Cir. imposes must United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 2010). an place Regardless above, on below, the or record of whether the within-Guidelines an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it. United States (internal v. Carter, quotation marks 564 F.3d 325, omitted). 330 (4th However, Cir. it is 2009) not necessary that a court issue a comprehensive, detailed opinion, but the explanation must be sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review. United States v. Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330, 2 343 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, the sentencing court need not robotically tick through § 3553(a) s every subsection; it only must provide some indication that it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors with respect to the defendant before it and also considered any nonfrivolous arguments raised by the parties at sentencing. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 2006); see Carter, 564 F.3d at 328. McPhaul first claims that the sentence imposed by the district court is procedurally unreasonable because the court did not specifically address any of counsel s arguments other than merely noting McPhaul s status as a career offender. Here, the district court listened to defense counsel s arguments for a downward variance based on the § 3553(a) factors specifically, that McPhaul had a history of abuse, poverty, and drug addiction and that McPhaul s actions during the instant offense did not warrant a 262-month sentence. Although the district court acknowledged that the instant conduct would not have normally warranted a 262-month sentence, the court stated that [McPhaul] s paying the price for the career offender status (J.A. 51) and declined to vary from the Guidelines range, emphasizing that McPhaul had amassed an average of about one J.A. refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties. 3 conviction a year for seventeen years. We conclude that, although the district court did not specifically address each of defense counsel s arguments, the court s comments demonstrated that it found the arguments unpersuasive in light of McPhaul s lengthy criminal history and his status as a career offender. McPhaul also argues that the district court did not adequately explain its sentence and that his case is similar to one of the defendants in Lynn, see 592 F.3d at 583-85. disagree. In imposing the 262-month sentence, the We district court stated that the findings in the presentence report were credible and reliable (J.A. 60), that it calculated the Guidelines range from those findings, and that it considered the § 3553(a) factors extensive criminal as well. history The and court status mentioned as a McPhaul s career offender during defense counsel s arguments for a downward variance. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). The court also stated that See it considered McPhaul s background and the nature of the instant offense. See id. The court further recommended that McPhaul be exposed to the most intense drug treatment possible during the term § of his incarceration. 3553(a)(2)(D). While the (J.A. district 62); court see did 18 not U.S.C. cite to specific § 3553(a) factors in explaining the sentence, it was not required to do so. See United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 658 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating that reasons articulated for 4 given sentence need not be couched in the precise language of § 3553(a), so long as reasons can be matched to a factor appropriate for consideration . . . and [are] clearly tied to [defendant s] that the particular district considered the nonfrivolous court arguments Accordingly, with contentions are provided § 3553(a) procedurally reasonable. dispense situation ). oral We some factors and indication and that therefore defense McPhaul s conclude that it counsel s sentence is See Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d at 380. we affirm argument adequately the criminal because presented in the the judgment. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
