US v. Mantel Mubdi, No. 13-4961 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4961 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MANTEL DELANCE MUBDI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00051-RLV-DCK-1) Submitted: September 11, 2014 Decided: September 15, 2014 Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Melissa L. Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mantel Delance Mubdi appeals the 195-month sentence imposed by the district court following remand by this court for resentencing in light of Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 133 (2013). On appeal, Mubdi contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable and that the district court erred in increasing the statutory mandatory minimum sentence on his drug convictions based on the fact of a prior conviction. Finding no error, we affirm. Mubdi first contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because of the unwarranted sentencing disparity resulting from the crack-to-powder ratio established by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. In reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, we must take into account the totality of the circumstances. States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Gall v. United If the sentence imposed is within the appropriate Sentencing Guidelines range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness. 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013). United States v. Weon, 722 F.3d The presumption may be rebutted by a showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the [18 U.S.C.] ยง 3553(a) [(2012)] factors. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 quotation marks omitted). 2 (4th Cir. United States v. 2006) (internal In considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that reasonableness Thus, the Mubdi has accorded district not to court rebutted his did the presumption within-Guidelines not abuse its of sentence. discretion in declining to vary downward from the Sentencing Guidelines and choosing to impose a within-Guidelines sentence. See United States Cir. v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th 2010) (providing standard of review); see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 46, 51. Next, Mubdi contends that the district court erred in increasing the statutory mandatory minimum sentence on his drug convictions based on the fact of a prior conviction. As Mubdi concedes, however, this claim is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228-35 (1998). See United States v. McDowell, 745 F.3d 115, 124 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating that Almendarez-Torres remains good law ), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (June 16, 2014) (No. 13-10640). Accordingly, judgment. legal before we affirm the district court s amended We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
