USA v. Jacquez Keshawn Neal, No. 18-10463 (11th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-10463 Date Filed: 08/21/2018 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-10463 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 7:17-cr-00284-LSC-TMP-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JACQUEZ KESHAWN NEAL, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________ (August 21, 2018) Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-10463 Date Filed: 08/21/2018 Page: 2 of 2 Jacquez Keshawn Neal appeals his sentence of imprisonment for 60 months after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends his sentence above the advisory guidelines range is substantively unreasonable because the district court improperly considered his criminal history and his age. We affirm. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential standard for abuse of discretion. United States v. Foster, 878 F.3d 1297, 1304 (11th Cir. 2018). Neal’s sentence is substantively reasonable. The district court properly weighed his serious criminal history and provided a compelling basis for its upward variance, which was well below the statutory maximum sentence of 120 months of imprisonment. The district court considered the need to promote respect for the law, protect the public, afford adequate deterrence, and provide needed educational and vocational training. The district court also found that Neal’s youth was not a mitigating factor in the light of his extensive criminal history. At age 19, Neal already had a criminal history category of V with prior convictions for disorderly conduct, obstruction of governmental operations, robbery in the third degree, shooting into an occupied building, and receiving stolen property. The district court did not abuse its discretion. AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
