United States v. Summer McCroskey

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 12, 2024
• Docket: 23-4364
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4364 Doc: 23 Filed: 04/12/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4364

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SUMMER NICHOLE MCCROSKEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cr-00220-RDB-1)

Submitted: March 11, 2024 Decided: April 12, 2024

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Wesley P. Page, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellant Counsel, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Paul E. Budlow, Assistant United States Attorney, Colleen E. McGuinn, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4364 Doc: 23 Filed: 04/12/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Summer Nichole McCroskey pleaded guilty, without a written plea agreement, to

conspiracy to commit sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e);

seven counts of sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); five

counts of distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2); and

three counts of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2252A(a)(5)(B). The district court sentenced McCroskey within the applicable

Sentencing Guidelines range to 960 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, McCroskey argues

that this within-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court

did not adequately account for her own experience as a victim of abuse, traumatic

childhood, and history of mental illness. We affirm.

We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-

discretion standard.” United States v. Williams, 5 F.4th 500, 505 (4th Cir. 2021).

“Substantive-reasonableness review requires us to consider the totality of the

circumstances to determine 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. Reed, 58 F.4th 816, 820 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation

marks omitted). “This review is highly deferential” and “should not be overly searching,

because it is not the role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the

sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence.” United States v. Smith,

75 F.4th 459, 466 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, “[a]ny

sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4364 Doc: 23 Filed: 04/12/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

[substantively] reasonable,” and “[s]uch a presumption can only be rebutted by showing

that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors.” United

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

McCroskey has not rebutted the presumption that her within-Guidelines sentence is

substantively reasonable. ∗ The district court crafted a sentence that carefully considered

the gravity of the offense, the deterrent effect of a lengthy sentence, and the need to protect

the public—especially children—from McCroskey. Further, the court did not ignore

McCroskey’s mitigation arguments. Contrary to McCroskey’s argument on appeal, the

court discussed her history of abuse and mental illness. Even in light of McCroskey’s

troubled background, the court still concluded that a lengthy sentence was appropriate. On

this record, we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in selecting

McCroskey’s sentence, and we decline McCroskey’s invitation to reweigh the § 3553(a)

factors.

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

∗ We have confirmed that McCroskey’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.”).