United States v. Jamal Holder ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4269
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMAL ANTWON HOLDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge.
(8:12-cr-00063-RWT-1)
Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: January 8, 2014
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Gregory Hall, LAW OFFICES OF MARC G. HALL, P.C., Rockville,
Maryland, for Appellant. William Moomau, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamal Antwon Holder appeals from his convictions and
125-month sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to three
counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On
appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 1 brief, stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the
constitutionality and reasonableness of Holder’s sentence. The
Government has declined to file a brief. Holder filed a pro se
supplemental brief, averring that Alleyne v. United States, __
U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), rendered his sentencing
enhancement improper. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a
deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). We first ensure that the
district court committed no “significant procedural error,”
including improper calculation of the Guidelines range,
insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors, or inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed.
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). If we find the sentence
procedurally reasonable, we also must examine the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, considering “the totality of the
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed
must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy
the purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A within
Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable on appeal, and the
defendant bears the burden to “rebut the presumption by
demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda,
445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Because the district court properly calculated
Holder’s Guidelines range based on his relevant conduct and
criminal history and explained the sentence in light of the
§ 3553(a) factors in great detail, we conclude that Holder’s
sentence is procedurally reasonable. See United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that district
court must conduct individualized assessment based on particular
facts of each case). Further, the sentence, which is within the
Guidelines range, 2 is also substantively reasonable because
Holder provides no information on appeal to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness.
2
Counsel states on appeal that the sentence was below the
Guidelines range. Counsel is mistaken. After a departure,
Holder’s Guidelines range was 100 to 125 months in prison.
3
In his pro se brief, Holder contends that, under
Alleyne, his sentence was improperly enhanced under the
Guidelines for trafficking firearms when he was not charged with
and did not plead guilty to trafficking. In Alleyne, the
Supreme Court decided that the Sixth Amendment and the Fifth
Amendment's Due Process Clause require a jury to determine any
fact that increases the mandatory minimum punishment for an
offense. 133 S. Ct. at 2162–63. However, although judicially
determined facts are no longer relevant after Alleyne to
deciding the applicable mandatory minimum, the factual findings
needed to calculate a defendant's advisory Guidelines range are
still within the district court’s province. See United
States v. Claybrooks, 729 F.3d 699, 708 (7th Cir. 2013); United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233 (2005) (“[W]hen a trial
judge exercises his discretion to select a specific sentence
within a defined range, the defendant has no right to a jury
determination of the facts that the judge deems relevant”). As
Alleyne had no effect on Guidelines enhancements, Holder’s claim
is without merit.
In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Holder’s convictions and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Holder in
writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
4
States for further review. If Holder requests that a petition
be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Holder. 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
5