US v. Jerrell Broadie

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cr-00115-JRS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999979665].. [16-4034]

Appeal: 16-4034

Doc: 28

Filed: 12/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4034

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERRELL MARKES BROADIE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:15-cr-00115-JRS-1)

Submitted:

September 21, 2016

Decided:

December 2, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant,
Appellate Attorney, Elizabeth W. Hanes, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente,
United States Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4034

Doc: 28

Filed: 12/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jerell Markes Broadie appeals the 84-month sentence imposed
upon

his

guilty

plea

to

theft

of

firearms

from

a

licensed firearms dealer, 18 U.S.C. § 922(u) (2012).

federally
Broadie

claims, first, that the district court improperly assigned a
base offense level of 20 under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(USSG) § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)(i)(I)

(2014),

that

semiautomatic

the

offense

involved

a

based

upon

its

weapon

findings

capable

of

accepting a large capacity magazine and that Broadie qualified
as

a

“prohibited

district

court

person.”

erred

in

Second,
applying

Broadie

the

claims

four-level

that

the

enhancement

under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5) for engaging in firearms trafficking.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuseof-discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007); United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 527-28 (4th Cir.
2014).

We review the sentencing court’s factual findings for

clear error.

United States v. Flores-Alvarado, 779 F.3d 250,

254 (4th Cir. 2015).

With these standards in mind, we have

reviewed the record before the court and the parties’ briefs and
find no clear error and no abuse of discretion by the district
court in imposing Broadie’s sentence.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2