US v. Jamar Randall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00174-MOC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999712190]. [15-4120]

Appeal: 15-4120

Doc: 39

Filed: 12/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMAR SERON RANDALL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:10-cr-00174-MOC-1)

Submitted:

November 16, 2015

Decided:

December 4, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jill Westmoreland Rose, Acting United States Attorney, Anthony
J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4120

Doc: 39

Filed: 12/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jamar Seron Randall appeals the 72-month sentence imposed
by the district court following his straight up guilty plea to
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). 1

On appeal, Randall contends that,

under Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), the
district court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by
engaging in judicial factfinding to increase his base offense
level and establish the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range.
In assessing the district court’s application of the Sentencing
Guidelines, we review factual findings for clear error and legal
conclusions de novo.
292 (4th Cir. 2012).
In

Alleyne,

the

United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288,
Finding no error, we affirm.
Supreme

Court

held

“that

any

fact

that

increases the mandatory minimum is an element [of the offense]
that

must

be

submitted

to

the

jury.”

(internal quotation marks omitted).

133

S.

Ct.

at

2155

Here, the district court’s

finding that the firearm had an obliterated serial number served
to increase the advisory Guidelines range, but did not affect

1

Randall originally pled guilty to this charge in 2011.
The district court subsequently concluded, on a 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion, that Randall was denied effective assistance of
counsel during the plea bargaining process.
The court vacated
the judgment to afford Randall an opportunity to enter a new
plea and, in October 2014, Randall once again pled guilty.

2

Appeal: 15-4120

Doc: 39

Filed: 12/04/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

Randall’s statutory sentencing range. 2

Thus, Alleyne does not

apply.

on

Similarly,

Randall’s

reliance

Descamps

v.

United

States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (addressing when courts may use
the modified categorical approach to determine whether a prior
conviction

qualifies

as

a

predicate

offense

for

purposes

of

recidivist enhancements), is unavailing.
We

conclude

Randall’s

at

sentencing

exposure.

court’s judgment.
facts

and

materials

the

constitutional

factfinding
sentencing

that

legal
before

district

rights
that

court

by

did

engaging

did

not

affect

Accordingly,

we

affirm

not

violate

in

judicial

his

statutory

the

district

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2

Randall’s statutory mandatory maximum sentence under
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was 10 years’ imprisonment and there was
no statutory mandatory minimum sentence.
18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2)
(2012).

3