USA v. Jermaine Carlyle

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jermaine Leontae Carlyle. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-12784

Date Filed: 08/24/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-12784
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00297-VMC-UAM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JERMAINE LEONTAE CARLYLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 24, 2017)

Before MARTIN, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-12784

Date Filed: 08/24/2017

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Carlyle appeals his 77-month sentence, imposed within the
advisory guideline range, after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a
firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).
Briefly stated, the appeal presents three issues:
1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Carlyle’s
motion to continue his sentencing hearing until after the effective date of
some amended Sentencing Guidelines;
2. Whether U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally
vague so that the district court erred by using Carlyle’s prior convictions
for “crimes of violence” to increase his base offense level; and
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by improperly weighing
the § 3553(a) factors and imposing a substantively unreasonable
sentence.

We see no reversible error.
First, because the district court had the inherent authority to manage its
docket and Carlyle had no right to be sentenced under a future Sentencing
Guidelines amendment, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Carlyle’s motion to continue sentencing until a date after the amendment’s
effective date. Second, because Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017),
forecloses Carlyle’s argument that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551
(2015), rendered U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause unconstitutionally vague,
2

Case: 16-12784

Date Filed: 08/24/2017

Page: 3 of 3

the district court did not err by increasing his base offense level due to prior
“crimes of violence.” Third, because the district court addressed the § 3553(a)
factors and Carlyle has not identified a specific error in the court’s reasoning; the
district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable
sentence.
AFFIRMED.

3