United States of America v. Samuel Lee Donaldson, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4663
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAMUEL LEE DONALDSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:19-cr-00036-TSK-MJA-1)
Submitted: August 23, 2022 Decided: August 25, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Hilary L. Godwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William
Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Christopher L. Bauer, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Lee Donaldson, Jr., was convicted by a jury of unlawful possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), (9), 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced
him to 98 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Donaldson argues that the within-Guidelines
sentence is unreasonable because the district court placed undue emphasis on certain
factors when fashioning the sentence and failed to adequately explain its rejection of his
mitigating arguments. We affirm.
We review criminal sentences for both procedural and substantive reasonableness
“under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Lewis, 18 F.4th 743,
748 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). When reviewing whether a
sentence is reasonable, we first “ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error.” United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Such errors include “treating the [advisory Sentencing]
Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a
sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “If [we] find no significant procedural
error, [we] then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.” United
States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). We look to “the totality
of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding
that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” Id. at 176 (internal
quotation marks omitted). A within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
United States v. Gillespie, 27 F.4th 934, 945 (4th Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed, No. 21-
8089 (U.S. June 8, 2022).
A district court risks abusing its discretion when it “focuse[s] extensively on a single
factor . . . at the expense of a reasoned analysis of other pertinent factors.” United States
v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 531 (4th Cir. 2014). However, “district courts have extremely
broad discretion when determining the weight to be given each of the § 3553(a) factors.”
United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 215 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Thus, “we must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the
§ 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify” the chosen sentence. Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the 98-month sentence is reasonable.
The district court considered Donaldson’s arguments in support of a downward variance,
balanced those arguments against the § 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained the
chosen sentence. Although the district court weighed the factors differently than
Donaldson would have liked, it was well within its discretion to do so, and Donaldson has
not rebutted the presumption that the within-Guidelines sentence the court imposed is
reasonable.
We therefore affirm the criminal 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 --