US v. Sammy Mebane, Jr., No. 12-4977 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4977 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SAMMY LEE MEBANE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00301-WO-2) Submitted: September 16, 2013 Decided: October 29, 2013 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Stephen T. Inman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sammy Lee Mebane, Jr., pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after sustaining a prior conviction for an offense punishable by a violation of term 18 exceeding U.S.C. § one year of 922(g)(1). imprisonment, The district in court sentenced Mebane to seventy-eight months of imprisonment, with twenty-eight months to run concurrently with any sentence Mebane would receive for pending related state charges. appeals. Mebane now Finding no error, we affirm. Mebane argues on appeal that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court did not impose a sentence entirely concurrent to the un-imposed state sentence. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). impose a partially federal A district court has the discretion to sentence concurrent to concurrent any to, un-imposed consecutive state to, sentence. Sester v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463, 1468-69 (2012). or See In deciding whether to run a sentence concurrently or consecutively to another sentence, the court must consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We have 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b). thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that the court s below2 Guidelines sentence, imposed partially concurrent with the unimposed state sentence, is reasonable. The district court recognized its authority to sentence Mebane either consecutively to or concurrently with the un-imposed state sentence, thoroughly considered and discussed the parties arguments and the § 3553(a) factors, and exhaustively explained the chosen sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in 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.
