United States of America v. Qunshaundes Davion McNealy

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2336
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Qunshaundes Davion McNealy
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: April 11, 2023
Filed: August 16, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, MELLOY and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Qunshaundes Davion McNealy pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a
firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Based on a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility and enhancements for the number and type of firearms,
and for the fact that he possessed a stolen firearm, McNealy’s resulting offense level
was 27. With a criminal history of Category VI, his resulting advisory Guidelines

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
range would have been 130–162 months. The statutory maximum sentence for his
offense, however, was 120 months, resulting in a Guidelines term of 120 months.
USSG § 5G1.1(a).
McNealy moved unsuccessfully for a downward departure, emphasizing that
there was no evidence he had fired the firearms or used them in a violent way. The
district court1 rejected his arguments and imposed a sentence of 120 months.
McNealy appeals, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
We review the substantive reasonableness of McNealy’s sentence, including
the denial of his motion for a downward variance, for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Ford, 987 F.3d 1210, 1215 (8th Cir. 2021). Within-range sentences are
presumptively reasonable on appeal, and only in an unusual case will we find such
a sentence to be unreasonable. United States v. Jones, 990 F.3d 1141, 1144–45 (8th
Cir. 2021). This is not such a case. The district court expressly addressed the
arguments McNealy raises in the present appeal and described his arguments as
demonstrating “a lack of aggravating evidence as opposed to mitigating factors.”
The district court considered only relevant factors and did not abuse its substantial
discretion. It simply weighed the relevant factors differently than urged by
McNealy.
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United State District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 2 --