US v. Michael Taylor, No. 14-4011 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL JAMES TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00022-MR-DLH-10) Submitted: October 20, 2014 Decided: October 29, 2014 Before KEENAN and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacob H. Sussman, TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael possess with Taylor intent methamphetamine substance James to and more containing pled guilty distribute than to more grams 500 than of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. conspiracy 50 to of mixture a grams or §§ 841, 846 (2012), and was sentenced to a below-Guidelines sentence of 324 months imprisonment. He appeals, claiming that the district court erred in denying his motion for appointment of a mental health expert prior to sentencing and that his sentence is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We affirm. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (2012), the district court may, at its discretion, authorize appointed counsel to obtain investigative, expert, or other services necessary for adequate representation, provided the expertise is necessary and that the person is financially unable to obtain them. Id. The district court s denial of authorization for an expert witness is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hartsell, 127 F.3d 343, 349 (4th Cir. 1997). We discretion find in that the denying district Taylor s court motion for did not abuse appointment mental health expert to assist with sentencing. its of a The district court had before it extensive background information in Taylor s presentence report, motion testimony and as well as presented 2 information at the contained hearing. The in the record clearly establishes that the district court considered all of this information in fashioning a sentence below the applicable Guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. We must first review for significant procedural error[s], including, among other things, improperly calculating the Guidelines range. procedurally reasonable reasonableness. calculated court. Id. Id. Only if this court finds a sentence may it consider its substantive A sentence imposed within the properly Guidelines range is presumed reasonable by this See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the record on appeal, including the transcript of Taylor s sentencing hearing, as well as the parties briefs, and find that his sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. advisory Guidelines range The court properly calculated the and conducted an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it. 2009). United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. We find that Taylor cannot overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded his sentence. See United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012) (noting that a below3 Guidelines sentence, like a within-Guidelines sentence, is presumed reasonable on appeal). We therefore affirm Taylor s sentence. 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.
