United States v. Jadonavan Johnson , 548 F. App'x 928 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4518
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JADONAVAN O’BRYANT JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00425-CCE-1)
Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S.
Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
T. Nick Matkins, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jadonavan O’Bryant Johnson pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(2)
(2012). The district court sentenced Johnson to 204 months’
imprisonment. On appeal, Johnson questions whether his sentence
is substantively reasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.
Johnson challenges the substantive reasonableness of
his sentence, which was at the upper-end of the applicable
Sentencing Guidelines range. We review the sentence for
reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A
sentence is procedurally reasonable if the court properly
calculates the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, gives the
parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence,
considers the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, does not rely
on clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explains the
selected sentence. Id. at 49–51.
As to substantive reasonableness, the 204-month
sentence, within Johnson’s properly-calculated Guidelines range,
is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, United States v.
Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012), which Johnson has
not rebutted. See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375,
379 (4th Cir. 2006) (“A defendant can only rebut the presumption
2
by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors.” (internal quotation
marks and alteration omitted)). The district court therefore
did not abuse its discretion and imposed a reasonable sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the 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
3