US v. Charles Manu, No. 16-4407 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4407 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CHARLES MANU, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00060-JPB-JES-1) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Before GREGORY, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and KING and November 23, 2016 DUNCAN, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brendan S. Leary, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, David J. Perri, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Manu access devices, (2012), and was pled 18 guilty U.S.C. sentenced to possession of §§ 1029(a)(3), to 24 months unauthorized 1029(c)(1)(A)(i) in prison. He appeals, challenging the reasonableness of his sentence. now We affirm. The record determined that reflects Manu’s that the Guidelines district range court was 6-12 properly months, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors and the arguments of the parties, and provided a sufficiently individualized assessment based on the facts of the case. The court explained that it had varied above the Guidelines range because Manu had not cooperated fully with investigators, had recently committed a similar offense in Kentucky, and had not been truthful with his probation officer about his claimed past employment. We conclude that the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). We therefore affirm. 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.