UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerell Markes Broadie appeals the 84-month sentence imposed
upon his guilty plea to theft of firearms from a federally
licensed firearms dealer, 18 U.S.C. § 922(u) (2012). 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), based upon its findings
that the offense involved a semiautomatic weapon capable of
accepting a large capacity magazine and that Broadie qualified
as a “prohibited person.” Second, Broadie claims that the
district court erred in applying the four-level enhancement
under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5) for engaging in firearms trafficking.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse-
of-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