US v. Balal Choudhary, No. 16-4234 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BALAL THEO CHOUDHARY, a/k/a Paco Choudhary, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:15-cr-00077-H-1) Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: January 5, 2017 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Balal Theo Choudhary pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012), possession of cocaine and marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2012). Sentencing Choudhary He received a sentence within his advisory Guidelines now range appeals, review a sentence discretion standard.” 41 (2007). 140 claiming substantively unreasonable. We of months’ that his imprisonment. sentence is We affirm. “under a deferential abuse-of- See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, When reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we “examine[] the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence . . . satisfied the standards set forth in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) [(2012)].” United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the sentence is within the correctly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range, as it is here, we presume that the sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). This presumption is rebutted only if the defendant shows “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) 2 factors.” United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 176 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Choudhary challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence on the basis that his sentence was excessive in light of his troubled upbringing and the fact that he was not a largescale drug trafficker. We conclude, however, that Choudhary has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to his within-Guidelines Accordingly, dispense we with contentions are sentence. affirm oral the district argument adequately Louthian, court’s because presented 756 in the the F.3d at 306. judgment. We facts and legal materials before this court and argument would 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.
