UNPUBLISHED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 Decided: December 8, 2016
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 term of imprisonment. The
court ordered Arnold’s sentence to run consecutively to the
remainder of his state sentence. Arnold challenges the court’s
decision to impose a 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). In determining
whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable, we consider,
among other factors, whether the district court properly
calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range and
adequately explained its chosen sentence. 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 applied the relevant
2
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 offense, the conduct resulting in Arnold’s
conviction for negligent child abuse causing serious bodily
injury was not. Accordingly, the district court had discretion
to order 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”). We
also conclude that the court adequately considered 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. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4