UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4582
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TANYA VALENCIA MACK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00348-WDQ-2)
Submitted: October 21, 2016 Decided: October 31, 2016
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard S. Stolker, UPTOWN LAW, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,
Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tanya Valencia Mack appeals her sentence of 240 months’
imprisonment following her jury conviction for conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and
crack cocaine. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review a criminal sentence “under a deferential abuse-
of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
(2007). We “first ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . failing to
consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, . . . or
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51.
If there is no significant procedural error, we then consider
the sentence’s substantive reasonableness under “the totality of
the circumstances.” Id.
Mack does not challenge her sentence’s procedural
reasonableness but argues that her sentence is substantively
unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Because the district
court imposed a sentence below the properly calculated
Guidelines range, we presume that Mack’s sentence is reasonable.
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). A
defendant can rebut this presumption only “by showing that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors.” Id.
2
After careful review of the record, we conclude that Mack
has not made the showing necessary to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness we apply to her below-Guidelines sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
3