US v. Jamal Sinclair, No. 11-5217 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5217 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMAL LAMONT SINCLAIR, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 within-Guidelines sentence. In sentence, reviewing we take circumstances. reasonableness afforded to his Finding no error, we affirm. the into substantive account reasonableness the totality of of a the 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 2006) Cir. review, we (internal conclude that quotation Sinclair marks failed omitted). to rebut Upon 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. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 (providing standard of review). 2 See We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
