US v. Jamal Holder, No. 13-4269 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4269 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAMAL ANTWON HOLDER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:12-cr-00063-RWT-1) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: January 8, 2014 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc Gregory Hall, LAW OFFICES OF MARC G. HALL, P.C., Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. William Moomau, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jamal Antwon Holder appeals from his convictions and 125-month sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to three counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 1 brief, stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the constitutionality and reasonableness of Holder s sentence. Government has declined to file a brief. The Holder filed a pro se supplemental brief, averring that Alleyne v. United States, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. enhancement improper. 2151 (2013), rendered his sentencing We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse of States, U.S. 38, 552 district including court discretion 46 committed improper standard. (2007). no We first significant calculation of Gall v. ensure United that the procedural error, Guidelines range, the insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, United or inadequate States (quoting Gall, v. 552 Lynn, U.S. explanation of 592 F.3d 572, at 51). If the 575 we sentence (4th find imposed. Cir. the 2010) sentence procedurally reasonable, we also must examine the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, considering the totality of the 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed must be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to satisfy the purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A within Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable on appeal, and the defendant bears the burden to rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the Holder s Guidelines criminal history district range and court based explained on the properly his relevant sentence in calculated conduct light of and the § 3553(a) factors in great detail, we conclude that Holder s sentence is procedurally reasonable. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that district court must conduct individualized assessment based on particular facts of each case). Guidelines Holder range, 2 provides Further, the sentence, which is within the is no also substantively information on reasonable appeal to because rebut the presumption of reasonableness. 2 Counsel states on appeal that the sentence was below the Guidelines range. Counsel is mistaken. After a departure, Holder s Guidelines range was 100 to 125 months in prison. 3 In Alleyne, his his pro se sentence brief, was Holder improperly contends enhanced that, under under the Guidelines for trafficking firearms when he was not charged with and did not plead guilty to trafficking. In Alleyne, the Supreme Court decided that the Sixth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause require a jury to determine any fact that offense. increases the mandatory determined 133 S. Ct. at 2162 63. facts are no longer minimum punishment for an However, although judicially relevant after Alleyne to deciding the applicable mandatory minimum, the factual findings needed to calculate a defendant's advisory Guidelines range are still within the district court s province. See United States v. Claybrooks, 729 F.3d 699, 708 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233 (2005) ( [W]hen a trial judge exercises his discretion to select a specific sentence within a defined range, the defendant has no right to a jury determination of the facts that the judge deems relevant ). As Alleyne had no effect on Guidelines enhancements, Holder s claim is without merit. In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Holder s convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Holder in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United 4 States for further review. If Holder requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may withdraw from representation. move this court for leave to Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Holder. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
