UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4262
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEWON LAMONT JAMISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00284-JAB-2)
Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: October 1, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher A. Beechler, LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER A. BEECHLER,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew Charles
Cochran, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dewon Lamont Jamison appeals the 228-month sentence
imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to
interfering with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1951(a), 2 (2012), and carrying and using, by discharging, a
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (2012). Jamison’s
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has found no meritorious
grounds for appeal but raising Jamison’s claims that the
district court improperly sentenced him under § 924(c) and
improperly applied the enhancement in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual (“USSG”) § 3C1.2 (2013). Jamison was informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
We affirm.
Jamison first argues that the district court erred by
sentencing him for discharging a firearm because a co-defendant,
not Jamison, discharged the firearm. This argument is precluded
by Jamison’s plea of guilty on the § 924(c) charge. Next,
Jamison argues that the district court erred by imposing a two-
level enhancement under USSG § 3C1.2 for reckless endangerment
during flight. Applying the relevant legal principles to the
evidence and testimony adduced at the sentencing hearing leaves
us without doubt that the district court did not clearly err in
2
imposing the enhancement in this case. See United States v.
Carter, 601 F.3d 252, 254-55 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating standard
of review and discussing § 3C1.2 enhancement). We therefore
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
sentencing Jamison. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007) (discussing appellate review of sentences).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found
none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Jamison, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Jamison requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this Court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Jamison. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this Court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3