United States v. Hall

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4820
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMERE IREADUS HALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR-
03-123-DKC)
Submitted: May 3, 2006 Decided: May 11, 2006
Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Arthur Robbins, CHESAPEAKE MERIDIAN, Annapolis, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Mythili
Raman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jamere Ireadus Hall appeals his 360-month sentence
imposed following his jury convictions for possession with intent
to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(A) (2000) and being a felon in possession of a firearm,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Hall disputes the
sentencing court’s factual finding regarding the drug quantity
attributable to him. We find no clear error in the district
court’s quantity determination because it was adequately supported
by Hall’s own admissions and by the other evidence presented at
trial. See United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir.
1999). Hall also asserts the sentencing court erred in declining
to award him a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility
under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1. We find no clear
error in this respect, especially given that Hall proceeded to a
jury trial after he absconded from custody for over a year. See
United States v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376, 383 (4th Cir. 1999). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm Hall’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -