US v. Timothy Mack, No. 12-4986 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY LEON MACK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00042-CCE-1) Submitted: May 15, 2013 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 22, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Stephen T. Inman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy Leon Mack pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The district court sentenced Mack to ninety-six months imprisonment, twenty-four months of which run concurrently with an unrelated state sentence. On appeal, Mack argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a partially concurrent sentence rather than a wholly concurrent sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential States, 552 abuse of U.S. 38, discretion 51 standard. (2007); see Gall also v. United United States Diosdado Star, 630 F.3d 359, 363, 366 (4th Cir. 2011). v. We first review for significant procedural errors, including whether the district court failed to consider the statutory factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If we find a sentence procedurally reasonable, we then consider substantive reasonableness, applying a totality of the circumstances test. Id. Finally, Guidelines where, range, reasonableness. the as here, court the may sentence apply a is within the presumption of Id.; see United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). Mack contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not favorably weigh the factors 2 set forth in the commentary to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(c) (2011), for imposing a sentence on a defendant already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment. The central issue at Mack s sentencing hearing was whether to impose a consecutive argued. sentence; The reflected the the district nature issue court and was fully explained circumstances that of the presented the and sentence offense, the seriousness of the offense, Mack s lengthy criminal history, and the need to protect the public from further crimes. The court also stated that it had taken into account the fact that the conduct in the instant case took place pretrial release for the state offense. while Mack was on We discern no infirmity in this reasoning. Therefore, we conclude that Mack s sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
