US v. Jonathan Cradle, No. 13-4021 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4021 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JONATHAN CRADLE, Defendant - Appellant.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-00161-CCE-1) Submitted: July 15, 2013 Decided: August 6, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jonathan Cradle appeals the district court s judgment sentencing him to thirty-two months imprisonment. Cradle pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and to making a false statement to a federal agent in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (2006). On appeal, Cradle contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for significant procedural error, including failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, selecting a sentence based on explain clearly the chosen erroneous facts, sentence. or Gall, failing 552 U.S. to adequately at 51. When considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we take into account the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Mendoza Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we presume on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. 2 United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346 56 (2007) (permitting appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). Cradle contends that the district court did not give the required provided weight at to the sentencing, and mitigating circumstances therefore the district that he court s within-Guidelines sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court adequately considered Cradle s arguments for a more lenient sentence, weighed them against the nature of his offenses, and arrived at a sentence that was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and argument will 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.
