US v. Jadonavan Johnson, No. 13-4518 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4518 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JADONAVAN O BRYANT JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00425-CCE-1) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, T. Nick Matkins, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jadonavan O Bryant Johnson pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation (2012). The district court sentenced Johnson to 204 months imprisonment. of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(2) On appeal, Johnson questions whether his sentence is substantively reasonable. Finding no error, we affirm. Johnson challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, Sentencing which Guidelines reasonableness standard. sentence was at the range. under a upper-end We review deferential of the the applicable sentence abuse-of-discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). is procedurally reasonable if for the court A properly calculates the defendant s advisory Guidelines range, gives the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considers the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, does not rely on clearly erroneous selected sentence. As to facts, and sufficiently explains the Id. at 49 51. substantive reasonableness, the 204-month sentence, within Johnson s properly-calculated Guidelines range, is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012), which Johnson has not rebutted. See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) ( A defendant can only rebut the presumption 2 by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion and imposed a reasonable sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3