US v. Jordan Guy


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:14-cr-00081-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999918759].. [15-4509]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4509 Doc: 43 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4509 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JORDAN ALLEN GUY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (7:14-cr-00081-D-1) Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 29, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-4509 Doc: 43 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Jordan Allen Guy pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1) (2012) (Count 1), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012) (Count 2), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2012) (Count 3). The district court sentenced him to concurrent 18- month prison terms on Counts 1 and 3 and a consecutive 60 months on Count 2, for a total within-Guidelines sentence of 78 months in prison. Guy argues that this sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review for district court. “Any sentence Guidelines reasonableness a sentence imposed by a Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). that range is is within or below presumptively a properly reasonable,” calculated and this “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). We have reviewed the record on appeal and Guy’s arguments and conclude that Guy has failed to rebut this presumption. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal Appeal: 15-4509 Doc: 43 contentions are Filed: 08/29/2016 adequately Pg: 3 of 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?