Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    United States v. Mark Murphy, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Mark Murphy's sentence of 115 months imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm and knowingly possessing a stolen firearm. The court found that the district court did not commit procedural error in determining the sentence. Specifically, the district court considered Murphy's argument that his close family ties warranted a lower sentence by noting it would not impose a fine due to Murphy having two daughters and discussing the Bureau of Prison's practice of incarcerating prisoners near family. Additionally, the district court properly calculated the advisory sentencing guidelines range and imposed a sentence within that range. As such, the appellate court applied a presumption of reasonableness to the within-guidelines sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Mark Murphy, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    33 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Mark Murphy's sentence of 115 months imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm and knowingly possessing a stolen firearm. The court found that the district court did not commit procedural error in determining the sentence. Specifically, the district court considered Murphy's argument that his close family ties warranted a lower sentence by noting it would not impose a fine due to Murphy having two daughters and discussing the Bureau of Prison's practice of incarcerating prisoners near family. Additionally, the district court properly calculated the advisory sentencing guidelines range and imposed a sentence within that range. As such, the appellate court applied a presumption of reasonableness to the within-guidelines sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-08-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-4051

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Mark Murphy's sentence of 115 months imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm and knowingly possessing a stolen firearm. The court found that the district court did not commit procedural error in determining the sentence. Specifically, the district court considered Murphy's argument that his close family ties warranted a lower sentence by noting it would not impose a fine due to Murphy having two daughters and discussing the Bureau of Prison's practice of incarcerating prisoners near family. Additionally, the district court properly calculated the advisory sentencing guidelines range and imposed a sentence within that range. As such, the appellate court applied a presumption of reasonableness to the within-guidelines sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    33 views4 pages

    United States v. Mark Murphy, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Mark Murphy's sentence of 115 months imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm and knowingly possessing a stolen firearm. The court found that the district court did not commit procedural error in determining the sentence. Specifically, the district court considered Murphy's argument that his close family ties warranted a lower sentence by noting it would not impose a fine due to Murphy having two daughters and discussing the Bureau of Prison's practice of incarcerating prisoners near family. Additionally, the district court properly calculated the advisory sentencing guidelines range and imposed a sentence within that range. As such, the appellate court applied a presumption of reasonableness to the within-guidelines sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-4051

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MARK MURPHY,
    Murphy, Jr.,

    a/k/a

    Carlos

    Sentrell

    Murphy,

    a/k/a

    Mark

    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Louise W. Flanagan,
    District Judge. (5:11-cr-00086-FL-1)

    Submitted:

    July 26, 2012

    Decided:

    August 7, 2012

    Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,


    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellant.
    Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
    P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Mark Murphy pled guilty to being a felon in possession
    of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2006) (Count 1) and
    knowingly possessing a stolen firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(j)
    (2006) (Count 2).

    Murphys advisory Sentencing Guidelines range

    was 92-115 months of imprisonment and he was sentenced to 115


    months.

    On

    appeal,

    Murphy

    argues

    that

    the

    district

    court

    committed procedural error in determining his sentence because


    it did not adequately address counsels argument that a lower
    sentence was appropriate because of his close family ties.

    For

    the reasons that follow, we affirm.


    We

    review

    sentence

    deferential

    abuse-of-discretion

    States,

    U.S.

    552

    38,

    49

    for

    reasonableness

    standard.

    (2007).

    In

    Gall

    applying
    v.

    determining

    United

    whether

    district court committed any significant procedural error, we


    look

    to

    any

    calculation)

    failure
    of

    the

    in

    the

    calculation

    Guidelines

    range,

    the

    (or

    the

    improper

    treatment

    of

    the

    Guidelines as mandatory, the failure to consider 18 U.S.C.


    3553(a)

    (2006)

    factors,

    the

    selection

    of

    sentence

    using

    clearly erroneous facts, and any failure to adequately explain


    the chosen sentence, including any deviation from the advisory
    Guidelines range.

    Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

    Although an individualized explanation must accompany


    every sentence, United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th
    2

    Cir. 2010); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.
    2009),

    sentencing

    comprehensive
    explanation

    and
    must

    court

    need

    detailed

    not

    opinion,

    nonetheless

    be

    necessarily
    although

    sufficient

    to

    issue

    the

    courts

    satisfy

    the

    appellate court that the district court considered the parties


    arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal
    decisionmaking authority.

    United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d

    832, 837 (4th Cir. 2010).


    apply
    will

    the
    not

    advisory

    When the judge decides simply to

    Sentencing

    necessarily

    require

    Guidelines,
    lengthy

    however,

    doing

    so

    explanation.

    Rita

    v.

    United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-57 (2007).

    Moreover, if a

    sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we apply a


    presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable.

    United

    States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008); United
    States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita,
    551 U.S. at 347.
    Here, the district court noted it was not imposing a
    fine

    because

    Murphy

    had

    dependents,

    his

    two

    daughters.

    Moreover, the court discussed the Bureau of Prisons practice of


    trying to incarcerate prisoners near their families.

    Thus, we

    find evidence that the court considered Murphys close family


    ties argument.

    Moreover, the court expressly considered the

    3553(a) factors, listened to the arguments of counsel and to


    Murphy

    himself,

    and

    imposed

    a
    3

    sentence

    within

    properly

    calculated

    advisory

    Guidelines

    range.

    Under

    these

    circumstances, we find that Murphy has provided no grounds to


    overcome the appellate presumption of correctness of his withinGuidelines range sentence.
    Accordingly, we affirm Murphys sentence.

    We dispense

    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like