United States v. Mantel Mubdi , 583 F. App'x 193 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4961
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MANTEL DELANCE MUBDI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00051-RLV-DCK-1)
Submitted: September 11, 2014 Decided: September 15, 2014
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Melissa L.
Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mantel Delance Mubdi appeals the 195-month sentence
imposed by the district court following remand by this court for
resentencing in light of Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct.
133 (2013). On appeal, Mubdi contends that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable and that the district court erred in
increasing the statutory mandatory minimum sentence on his drug
convictions based on the fact of a prior conviction. Finding no
error, we affirm.
Mubdi first contends that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable because of the unwarranted sentencing
disparity resulting from the crack-to-powder ratio established
by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. In reviewing the
substantive reasonableness of a sentence, we must “take into
account the totality of the circumstances.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If the sentence imposed is
within the appropriate Sentencing Guidelines range, “we apply a
presumption of reasonableness.” United States v. Weon, 722 F.3d
583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013). The presumption may be rebutted by a
showing “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors.” United States v.
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
2
In considering the totality of the circumstances, we
conclude that Mubdi has not rebutted the presumption of
reasonableness accorded to his within-Guidelines sentence.
Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
declining to vary downward from the Sentencing Guidelines and
choosing to impose a within-Guidelines sentence. See United
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir. 2010)
(providing standard of review); see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 46,
51.
Next, Mubdi contends that the district court erred in
increasing the statutory mandatory minimum sentence on his drug
convictions based on the fact of a prior conviction. As Mubdi
concedes, however, this claim is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres
v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228-35 (1998). See United
States v. McDowell, 745 F.3d 115, 124 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating
that “Almendarez-Torres remains good law”), petition for cert.
filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (June 16, 2014) (No. 13-10640).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s amended
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