United States v. Marcel Wallace, 689 F. App'x 773

Defendant Marcel Romains Wallace pleaded guilty to possession of stolen mail and bank fraud in violation of federal law.
District court imposed concurrent 42-month sentences, above the Sentencing Guidelines range (upward departure).
Wallace challenged only the substantive reasonableness of the sentence on appeal, not any procedural error.
District court based the upward departure on USSG §4A1.3(a)(1): criminal history underrepresented, decade-long pattern of similar offenses, high recidivism risk, prior sentences failed to deter, and need to protect the public.
Court of Appeals reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard and considered whether the extent of the upward departure was justified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s upward departure (extent) was substantively unreasonable	Wallace argued the sentence’s extent was excessive and unjustified	Government defended the departure as supported by underrepresented criminal history, recidivism risk, deterrence failure, and public protection	Court affirmed: district court did not abuse its discretion and provided sufficient reasons for the extent of the departure

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing reasonableness of sentences)
United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519 (4th Cir. 2014) (scope of review when defendant does not allege procedural error)
United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2014) (examining totality of circumstances under §3553(a))
United States v. Morace, 594 F.3d 340 (4th Cir. 2010) (greater justification required for major departures)
United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2011) (deference to sentencing court’s reasoned basis for departures)