US v. Mantel Mubdi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:08-cr-00051-RLV-DCK-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999435795].. [13-4961]

Appeal: 13-4961

Doc: 34

Filed: 09/15/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4961

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MANTEL DELANCE MUBDI,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00051-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted:

September 11, 2014

Decided:

September 15, 2014

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Melissa L.
Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4961

Doc: 34

Filed: 09/15/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mantel

Delance

Mubdi

appeals

the

195-month

sentence

imposed by the district court following remand by this court for
resentencing in light of Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct.
133 (2013).

On appeal, Mubdi contends that his sentence is

substantively unreasonable and that the district court erred in
increasing the statutory mandatory minimum sentence on his drug
convictions based on the fact of a prior conviction.

Finding no

error, we affirm.
Mubdi

first

contends

that

his

sentence

is

substantively unreasonable because of the unwarranted sentencing
disparity resulting from the crack-to-powder ratio established
by

the

Fair

Sentencing

Act

of

2010.

In

reviewing

the

substantive reasonableness of a sentence, we must “take into
account

the

totality

of

the

circumstances.”

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Gall

v.

United

If the sentence imposed is

within the appropriate Sentencing Guidelines range, “we apply a
presumption of reasonableness.”
583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013).

United States v. Weon, 722 F.3d

The presumption may be rebutted by a

showing “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors.”
Montes-Pineda,

445

F.3d

375,

379

quotation marks omitted).

2

(4th

Cir.

United States v.
2006)

(internal

Appeal: 13-4961

Doc: 34

Filed: 09/15/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

In considering the totality of the circumstances, we
conclude

that

reasonableness
Thus,

the

Mubdi

has

accorded

district

not
to

court

rebutted

his
did

the

presumption

within-Guidelines

not

abuse

its

of

sentence.

discretion

in

declining to vary downward from the Sentencing Guidelines and
choosing to impose a within-Guidelines sentence.

See United

States

Cir.

v.

Lynn,

592

F.3d

572,

576,

578

(4th

2010)

(providing standard of review); see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 46,
51.
Next, Mubdi contends that the district court erred in
increasing the statutory mandatory minimum sentence on his drug
convictions based on the fact of a prior conviction.

As Mubdi

concedes, however, this claim is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres
v.

United

States,

523

U.S.

224,

228-35

(1998).

See

United

States v. McDowell, 745 F.3d 115, 124 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating
that “Almendarez-Torres remains good law”), petition for cert.
filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (June 16, 2014) (No. 13-10640).
Accordingly,
judgment.
legal
before

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

amended

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3