United States of America v. Desmond Jermaine Whisonant

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4259
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DESMOND JERMAINE WHISONANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00279-WO-1)
Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 23, 2023
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra
J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Jacob D. Pryor, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Desmond Jermaine Whisonant pled guilty, pursuant to a written a plea agreement,
to distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). The
district court imposed a 124-month term of imprisonment, sentencing Whisonant below his
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,
Whisonant argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly
outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see United States v. Blue, 877
F.3d 513, 517 (4th Cir. 2017). This review requires consideration of both the procedural
and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Blue, 877 F.3d at 517. We have confirmed
that Whisonant’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. See United States v. Provance, 944
F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (“[W]e are required to analyze procedural reasonableness
before turning to substantive reasonableness.”).
In assessing substantive reasonableness, we consider “the totality of the
circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. A sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary,” to satisfy the statutory purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). “Any
sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v.
Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Whisonant argues that his sentence is too long and, therefore, is substantively
unreasonable. At sentencing, Whisonant requested a 75-month sentence. The district court
considered Whisonant’s mitigation arguments, including, inter alia, his difficult childhood;
mental health challenges, particularly following the loss of his teenage son; his desire to
support his pregnant daughter; and the fact that even 75 months’ imprisonment would be
approximately three times longer than any other sentence he had served. However, after
engaging with the parties’ arguments, the district court found that a sentence of less than
124 months’ imprisonment would not adequately account for the seriousness of the offense
or the needs to promote respect for the law and afford adequate deterrence.
The district court carefully evaluated the § 3553(a) factors and gave due
consideration to Whisonant’s mitigation arguments when imposing the below-Guidelines
sentence. Whisonant has therefore failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness
afforded his sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 of 3 --