United States v. Jordan Guy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4509
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JORDAN ALLEN GUY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (7:14-cr-00081-D-1)
Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 29, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jordan Allen Guy pled guilty to possession with intent to
distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1) (2012) (Count 1), possession of a firearm in furtherance
of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) (2012) (Count 2), and possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2012)
(Count 3). The district court sentenced him to concurrent 18-
month prison terms on Counts 1 and 3 and a consecutive 60 months
on Count 2, for a total within-Guidelines sentence of 78 months
in prison. Guy argues that this sentence is substantively
unreasonable.
We review for reasonableness a sentence imposed by a
district court. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007).
“Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated
Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable,” and this
“presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence
is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
[(2012)] factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306
(4th Cir.), 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). We have reviewed the record
on appeal and Guy’s arguments and conclude that Guy has failed
to rebut this presumption.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3