US v. Jamal Sinclair

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00062-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998876594].. [11-5217]

Appeal: 11-5217

Doc: 21

Filed: 06/18/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMAL LAMONT SINCLAIR,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00062-JAB-1)

Submitted:

June 5, 2012

Decided:

June 18, 2012

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Winston-Salem,
North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandra
Ford, Third Year Law Student, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-5217

Doc: 21

Filed: 06/18/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jamal

Lamont

Sinclair

appeals

the

eighty-four-month

sentence imposed following his guilty plea to distribution of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006).

On appeal, Sinclair challenges only

the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that he
rebutted

the

presumption

of

within-Guidelines sentence.
In
sentence,

reviewing

we

“take

circumstances.”

reasonableness

afforded

to

his

Finding no error, we affirm.

the
into

substantive
account

reasonableness

the

totality

of

of

a
the

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

If the sentence imposed is within the appropriate Sentencing
Guidelines

range,

we

may

presume

it

is

reasonable.

United

States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
This presumption may be rebutted by a showing “that the sentence
is unreasonable when measured against the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)
factors.”

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379

(4th

2006)

Cir.

review,

we

(internal

conclude

that

quotation
Sinclair

marks
failed

omitted).
to

rebut

Upon
the

presumption of reasonableness afforded to the within Guidelines
sentence.

Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion

in sentencing Sinclair to eighty-four months’ imprisonment.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 (providing standard of review).
2

See

Appeal: 11-5217

Doc: 21

Filed: 06/18/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3