US v. Michael Curtis Maness, No. 13-4689 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4689 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL CURTIS MANESS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cr-00428-WO-1) Submitted: June 27, 2014 Decided: July 15, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Clifton T. Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael after he Curtis pled Maness guilty, appeals pursuant to the a sentence plea imposed agreement, to possession of ammunition after having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. court applied Guidelines a cross-reference Manual (USSG) pursuant to § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) The district U.S. Sentencing the kidnapping to guideline, USSG § 2A4.1 because Maness possessed the ammunition in connection with an assault and kidnapping. downward from sentence of the 108 120-month months of sentencing The court varied range imprisonment. On and imposed appeal, a Maness asserts that the district court erred in finding the evidence sufficient to establish that the kidnapping occurred, because the testimony at sentencing was not credible. Maness also argues that, even if the incident occurred, it is not relevant conduct to his possession of ammunition because it lacks any connection to that offense, and thus cannot support application of the cross-reference. The Government argues that the district court did not err, and that even if the cross-reference was erroneously applied, the error was harmless. We find merit in this latter argument and affirm. A procedural sentencing error is harmless where this court has (1) knowledge that the district court would have reached the same result even if it had decided the [G]uidelines 2 issue the other way, and (2) a determination that the sentence would be reasonable even if the [G]uidelines decided in the defendant s favor. issue had been United States v. Savillon- Matute, 636 F.3d 119, 123 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Assuming that the cross-reference was erroneously applied, Maness s sentencing range would have been fifty-seven to seventy-one months of imprisonment, and the court s 108-month sentence is a variance of fifty-two percent. The district even if impose it the court erred same thoroughly in and applying sentence to repeatedly the explained cross-reference, satisfy the 18 that, U.S.C. it would § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that, in light of the arguments and district the § court s consideration 3553(a) sentencing of the factors, parties and its articulation of reasons warranting the imposition of an upward variant sentence, determination States v. as we to Hargrove, should the defer extent 701 F.3d to of 156, the district court s the variance. United 163-64 (4th 2012) Cir. (affirming variance from zero-to-six-month Guidelines range to sixty-month sentence), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2403 (2013); United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359, 366-67 (4th Cir. 2011) (affirming Guidelines range variance because sentence sentence 3 six was years based on greater the than district court s examination of relevant § 3553(a) factors); see also United States v. Angle, 598 F.3d 352, 359 (7th Cir. 2010) ( All that matters relation to is the that the package sentence of imposed reasons given be reasonable by the in court. ). Maness s sentence is reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not 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.