US v. Maurice Arnold, No. 16-4113 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4113 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MAURICE DESHON ARNOLD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00122-H-1) Submitted: November 22, 2016 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 8, 2016 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard L. Cannon, III, Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, Acting 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Maurice Deshon Arnold pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2012). The district court sentenced Arnold to 93 months’ imprisonment, giving Arnold credit for time served in state custody on an undischarged court ordered Arnold’s sentence to remainder of his state sentence. decision to impose a term run of imprisonment. consecutively to The the Arnold challenges the court’s consecutive sentence, arguing that the court erred in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines and failed to provide a sufficient explanation for its decision. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We review a sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Berry, 814 F.3d 192, 194-95 (4th Cir. 2016). whether among a sentence other calculated is factors, the procedurally whether defendant’s the In determining reasonable, district advisory adequately explained its chosen sentence. we consider, court Guidelines properly range and Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We review a district court’s decision to impose a concurrent or consecutive sentence for abuse of discretion but review de novo whether the district court properly 2 applied the relevant Guidelines. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1097 (4th Cir. 1995). While some of the conduct resulting in Arnold’s undischarged state sentence was included in the relevant conduct for the instant conviction for injury was not. to order offense, negligent the conduct child abuse resulting causing in Arnold’s serious bodily Accordingly, the district court had discretion Arnold’s sentence “to run concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to the prior undischarged term of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable punishment for the instant offense.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(d), p.s. (2015); see USSG § 5G1.3 cmt. n.2(A) (providing that § 5G1.3(b) applies and concurrent sentence is appropriate when “all of the prior offense is relevant conduct to the instant offense”). also conclude that the court adequately considered We the appropriate factors in deciding whether and to what extent to run Arnold’s sentence consecutively to the remainder of the undischarged state sentence and that its explanation for its chosen sentence was sufficient. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b) (2012) (referencing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. dispense with oral argument because 3 the facts and We 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.
