US v. Jaquell Tysor

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00165-CCE-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999968929]. [16-4073]

Appeal: 16-4073

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4073

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAQUELL MAURICE TYSOR,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00165-CCE-1)

Submitted:

October 28, 2016

Decided:

November 16, 2016

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, JoAnna G.
McFadden, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4073

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jaquell

Maurice

Tysor

pled

firearm by a convicted felon.

guilty

to

possession

of

a

The district court imposed a

sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Tysor argues

that the district court erred when it did not order his sentence
to run concurrent to an anticipated state sentence for relevant
conduct,

pursuant

§ 5G1.3(c) (2014).
We

review

deferential

to

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

For the following reasons, we affirm.

Tysor’s

sentence

abuse-of-discretion

for

reasonableness

standard.”

United

“under
States

a
v.

McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).
consideration

of

both

the

This review entails appellate
procedural

reasonableness of the sentence.

and

substantive

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

We

presume that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated
Sentencing Guidelines range is reasonable.

United States v.

Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
Tysor

alleges

the

district

court

committed

procedural

error, specifically in failing to properly apply USSG § 5G1.3 in
determining Tysor’s sentence.

We have reviewed the record and

conclude

court

that

the

district

properly

calculated

the

Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory rather than
mandatory,

gave

the

parties

an

opportunity

to

argue

for

an

appropriate sentence, considered the relevant sentencing factors
2

Appeal: 16-4073

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/16/2016

specific

to

Tysor’s

clearly

erroneous

case,
facts,

Pg: 3 of 4

selected
and

a

sentence

sufficiently

not

based

explained

on
the

sentence.

Because the court properly engaged in each of these

analytical

steps

and

explained

its

reasoning

supporting

the

sentence, it did not commit procedural error.
As to Tysor’s particular argument, we conclude the district
court

did

federal

not

abuse

sentence

anticipated

state

its

to

run

sentence

discretion

when

it

ordered

consecutively,

in

part,

for

relevant

conduct.

Tysor’s
to

his

Sentencing

judges “have discretion to select whether the sentences they
impose will run concurrently or consecutively with respect to
other sentences that they impose.”
S. Ct. 1463, 1468 (2012).

Setser v. United States, 132

Indeed, Setser specifically addressed

whether 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (2012) allows the imposition of a
federal sentence consecutive to an anticipated state sentence.
132 S. Ct. at 1470; United States v. Obey, 790 F.3d 545, 549
(4th Cir. 2015) (“Setser holds that a district court may run its
sentence consecutive to an anticipated state sentence.”).
Moreover, the Guidelines are advisory, thus the district
court was not obligated to impose concurrent sentences pursuant
to
Cir.

§ 5G1.3.
2013)

Guidelines,

United States v. Nania, 724 F.3d 824, 830 (7th

(“[G]iven
a

district

the

advisory

court

has

nature
no

of

the

obligation

concurrent sentence, even if § 5G1.3(b) applies.”).
3

Sentencing

to

impose

a

Rather, the

Appeal: 16-4073

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/16/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

district court is required to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012)

factors

consecutively

in

or

determining

whether

concurrently.

18

to

run

U.S.C.

§

the

sentences

3584(b)

(2012).

Thus, the district court was within its authority to run part of
Tysor’s federal sentence consecutive to the anticipated state
sentence, rather than concurrently, and we perceive no error in
its decision to do so.
Based
judgment.
legal
before

on

the

foregoing,

we

affirm

the

district

court's

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4