US v. Jamal Holder

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:12-cr-00063-RWT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999273108].. [13-4269]

Appeal: 13-4269

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/08/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4269

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/08/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

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.
Government has declined to file a brief.

The

Holder filed a pro se

supplemental brief, averring that Alleyne v. United States, __
U.S.

__,

133

S.

Ct.

enhancement improper.

2151

(2013),

rendered

his

sentencing

We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a
deferential

abuse

of

States,

U.S.

38,

552

district
including

court

discretion
46

committed

improper

standard.

(2007).
no

We

first

“significant

calculation

of

Gall

v.

ensure

United

that

the

procedural

error,”

Guidelines

range,

the

insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors,
United

or

inadequate

States

(quoting

Gall,

v.
552

Lynn,
U.S.

explanation

of

592

F.3d

572,

at

51).

If

the
575
we

sentence
(4th
find

imposed.

Cir.

the

2010)

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

Appeal: 13-4269

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/08/2014

circumstances.”

Pg: 3 of 5

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.”
445

F.3d

375,

379

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Montes-Pineda,
2006)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
Because

the

Holder’s

Guidelines

criminal

history

district

range

and

court

based

explained

on
the

properly

his

relevant

sentence

in

calculated
conduct

light

of

and
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).
Guidelines
Holder

range, 2

provides

Further, the sentence, which is within the
is

no

also

substantively

information

on

reasonable

appeal

to

because

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

Appeal: 13-4269

Doc: 34

In
Alleyne,

Filed: 01/08/2014

his

his

pro

se

sentence

Pg: 4 of 5

brief,
was

Holder

improperly

contends
enhanced

that,

under

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

offense.

increases

the

mandatory

determined

133 S. Ct. at 2162–63.
facts

are

no

longer

minimum

punishment

for

an

However, although judicially
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.
sentence.

Accordingly,

we

affirm

Holder’s

convictions

and

This court requires that counsel inform Holder in

writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
4

Appeal: 13-4269

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/08/2014

States for further review.

Pg: 5 of 5

If Holder requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous,

then

counsel

may

withdraw from representation.

move

this

court

for

leave

to

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