United States v. Ricky McLaughlin, Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 7, 2024
• Docket: 23-4493
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4493 Doc: 28 Filed: 08/07/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4493

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICKY JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cr-00294-WO-1)

Submitted: July 29, 2024 Decided: August 7, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Margaret M. Reece, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4493 Doc: 28 Filed: 08/07/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Ricky John McLaughlin, Jr., pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court calculated McLaughlin’s

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range as 77 to 96 months’ imprisonment and imposed a

downward-variant sentence of 66 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, McLaughlin argues

that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court

incorrectly calculated his advisory Guidelines range. We affirm.

McLaughlin contends that the district court erred by applying a four-level

enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2021) for

his possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense. He also challenges

the district court’s decision declining to grant a three-level reduction pursuant to USSG §

3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility. The Government contends that any error in the

court’s calculation of the Guidelines range is harmless.

“We review criminal sentences for reasonableness using an abuse of discretion

standard. A sentence based on an improperly calculated Guidelines range is procedurally

unreasonable.” United States v. Shephard, 892 F.3d 666, 670 (4th Cir. 2018) (citation

omitted). But “rather than review the merits of” McLaughlin’s Guidelines challenges, “we

may proceed directly to an assumed error harmlessness inquiry.” United States v. Gomez-

Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under this

inquiry, an error in calculating the Guidelines range “is considered harmless if we

determine that (1) the district court would have reached the same result even if it had

decided the [G]uidelines issue the other way, and (2) the sentence would be [substantively]

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4493 Doc: 28 Filed: 08/07/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

reasonable even if the [G]uidelines issue had been decided in the defendant’s favor.” Id.

at 382-83 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Applying that inquiry here, we conclude that the first element is easily satisfied.

The district court “made it abundantly clear” that it would have imposed the same 66-

month sentence even if it had erred in calculating the Guidelines range. See id. (holding

that first element is met when “the district court has expressly stated in a separate and

particular explanation that it would have reached the same result” even if it incorrectly

calculated the defendant’s Guidelines range). Indeed, at sentencing, the district court

stressed more than once that it would have arrived at the same 66-month sentence

regardless of whether it calculated the Guidelines as it did and varied downward, or arrived

at the requested lower Guidelines range of 37 to 46 months’ imprisonment and varied

upward.

The remaining question, then, is whether McLaughlin’s sentence would be

substantively reasonable had the district court decided the Guidelines issues in his favor.

Had the district court done so, McLaughlin’s advisory Guidelines range would have been

37 to 46 months’ imprisonment. Thus, McLaughlin’s 66-month sentence is an upward

variance from that range.

“Substantive reasonableness examines 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 [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a).” United States v. Collins, 982

F.3d 236, 244 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Moreover, district

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4493 Doc: 28 Filed: 08/07/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

courts have extremely broad discretion when determining the weight to be given each of

the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011).

After carefully reviewing the record and considering the parties’ arguments, the

district court identified several factors justifying McLaughlin’s 66-month sentence. The

court emphasized the nature and circumstances of the offense, as well as McLaughlin’s

irresponsible behavior and regular drug use, extensive criminal history, lack of respect for

the law and the need for deterrence, involvement in another felony offense, and dishonest

testimony at sentencing. Ultimately, it found that a 66-month sentence appropriately

balanced all these factors.

We agree with the district court that McLaughlin’s sentence satisfied the standards

set forth in § 3553(a). Thus, we conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable and

would have been even had the court decided the challenged Guidelines issues in

McLaughlin’s favor. Because any error in calculating the Guidelines range was therefore

harmless, we 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