United States v. Michael Kenney

── United States v. Michael Kenney ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-4143 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/28/2026 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-4143 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ALLEN KENNEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:24-cr-00040-1) Submitted: April 30, 2026 Decided: May 28, 2026 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: W. Michael Frazier, FRAZIER & OXLEY, LC, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. Lisa G. Johnston, Acting United States Attorney, Lesley Shamblin, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4143 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/28/2026 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: Michael Allen Kenney appeals his 80-month prison sentence imposed by the district court after his jury conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8). The district court found that his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 63 to 78 months, based on a total offense level of 20 and criminal history category V. The district court then upwardly departed to criminal history category VI pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3(a)(1) (2021), * resulting in a departure range of 70 to 87 months. It found his criminal history category was understated based on his convictions for serious crimes that did not receive points under the Guidelines and his consistent pattern of getting in trouble almost as soon as he finished a sentence. It further explained that its upward departure and 80-month sentence reflected the nature and circumstances of the offense, his history and characteristics, and the need for deterrence. On appeal, Kenney questions whether the district court erred in upwardly departing by finding that his criminal history category significantly under-represented the seriousness of his criminal history under § 4A1.3. “This Court reviews all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of- discretion standard.” United States v. Nixon, 130 F.4th 420, 428 (4th Cir. 2025) (citation * The district court applied the Guidelines Manual in effect at the time of the offense. See USSG § 1B1.11(b)(1), p.s. (“If the court determines that use of the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced would violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution, the court shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the offense of conviction was committed.”). After Kenney was sentenced, Section 4A1.3 was deleted, along with most other departure provisions. See USSG app. C, amend. 836 (effective Nov. 1, 2025). Kenney does not challenge the departure on this basis; and in any event, “[p]ost-sentencing Guidelines amendments do not make a pre-amendment sentence unreasonable.” United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 353 (4th Cir. 2015). 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4143 Doc: 20 Fi