US v. Jordan Guy

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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