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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [15-4509]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
August 25, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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
§ 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)
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
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007).
“presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence
is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
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.
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?