UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5217
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMAL LAMONT SINCLAIR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00062-JAB-1)
Submitted: June 5, 2012 Decided: June 18, 2012
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Randall S. Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandra
Ford, Third Year Law Student, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamal Lamont Sinclair appeals the eighty-four-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to distribution of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). On appeal, Sinclair challenges only
the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that he
rebutted the presumption of reasonableness afforded to his
within-Guidelines sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
In reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a
sentence, we “take into account the totality of the
circumstances.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
If the sentence imposed is within the appropriate Sentencing
Guidelines range, we may presume it is reasonable. United
States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
This presumption may be rebutted by a showing “that the sentence
is unreasonable when measured against the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)
factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379
(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon
review, we conclude that Sinclair failed to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness afforded to the within Guidelines
sentence. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion
in sentencing Sinclair to eighty-four months’ imprisonment. See
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 (providing standard of review).
2
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
3