United States v. Ahmad McClain

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 26, 2026
• Docket: 24-4410
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4410 Doc: 67 Filed: 03/26/2026 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4410

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AHMAD RASHAD MCCLAIN, a/k/a Wop,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:23-cr-00042-D-RJ-1)

Submitted: February 5, 2026 Decided: March 26, 2026

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Heather Rattelade, RATTELADE LAW, Pittsboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Daniel P. Bubar, Acting United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4410 Doc: 67 Filed: 03/26/2026 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Ahmad Rashad McClain appeals the 480-month sentence imposed following his

guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or

more of a mixture and substance containing heroin and protonitazene, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846; and possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or

more of a mixture and substance containing heroin and protonitazene, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). On appeal, McClain argues that the district court erred by

treating the protonitazene as fentanyl for purposes of calculating the relevant Sentencing

Guidelines drug quantity. The Government seeks summary affirmance, contending that

any error was harmless. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Rather than evaluating the merits of a defendant’s challenge to the calculation of his

Guidelines range, “we may proceed directly to an assumed error harmlessness inquiry.”

United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation modified). In

other words, we “may assume that [the alleged Guidelines] error occurred and proceed to

examine whether the error affected the sentence imposed.” United States v. McDonald,

850 F.3d 640, 643 (4th Cir. 2017). Under this inquiry,

a Guidelines error is harmless and does not warrant vacating the defendant’s sentence if the record shows that (1) the district court would have reached the same result even if it had decided the Guidelines issue the other way, and (2) the sentence would be reasonable even if the Guidelines issue had been decided in the defendant’s favor.

United States v. Mills, 917 F.3d 324, 330 (4th Cir. 2019) (citation modified). The error

will be deemed harmless if we are certain that these requirements are satisfied. United

States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d 194, 203 (4th Cir. 2012).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4410 Doc: 67 Filed: 03/26/2026 Pg: 3 of 4

Here, the district court explicitly stated that, even if it had misapplied the

Guidelines, it would impose the same 480-month sentence as an alternative variant

sentence under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Because the court thus “made

it abundantly clear that it would have imposed the same sentence . . . regardless of the

advice of the Guidelines,” we conclude that the first prong of the assumed error

harmlessness inquiry is satisfied. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d at 382.

Turning to the second prong, we consider whether the sentence is substantively

reasonable. Mills, 917 F.3d at 331. To be substantively reasonable, a sentence must be

“sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). When considering the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, “we examine

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).”

United States v. Davis, 130 F.4th 114, 127 (4th Cir. 2025) (citation modified).

We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that McClain’s 480-month sentence

is substantively reasonable. The district court provided a well-reasoned explanation for the

sentence that was rooted in the § 3553(a) factors and responsive to McClain’s arguments

for a lower sentence. In particular, the court emphasized that the seriousness, scale, and

relentlessness of McClain’s criminal conduct meant a significant sentence was needed to

provide adequate incapacitation, protect the public, and reflect the seriousness of the

offense. We therefore conclude that any error in the calculation of the Guidelines range

was harmless.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4410 Doc: 67 Filed: 03/26/2026 Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and we deny as moot the

Government’s motion for summary affirmance. 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