US v. Jamar Randall, No. 15-4120 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4120 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMAR SERON RANDALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:10-cr-00174-MOC-1) Submitted: November 16, 2015 Decided: December 4, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, Acting United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jamar Seron Randall appeals the 72-month sentence imposed by the district court following his straight up guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). 1 On appeal, Randall contends that, under Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), the district court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by engaging in judicial factfinding to increase his base offense level and establish the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. In assessing the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. 292 (4th Cir. 2012). In Alleyne, the United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, Finding no error, we affirm. Supreme Court held “that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an element [of the offense] that must be submitted to the jury.” (internal quotation marks omitted). 133 S. Ct. at 2155 Here, the district court’s finding that the firearm had an obliterated serial number served to increase the advisory Guidelines range, but did not affect 1 Randall originally pled guilty to this charge in 2011. The district court subsequently concluded, on a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, that Randall was denied effective assistance of counsel during the plea bargaining process. The court vacated the judgment to afford Randall an opportunity to enter a new plea and, in October 2014, Randall once again pled guilty. 2 Randall’s statutory sentencing range. 2 Thus, Alleyne does not apply. on Similarly, Randall’s reliance Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (addressing when courts may use the modified categorical approach to determine whether a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate offense for purposes of recidivist enhancements), is unavailing. We conclude Randall’s at sentencing exposure. court’s judgment. facts and materials the constitutional factfinding sentencing that legal before district rights that court by did engaging did not affect Accordingly, we affirm not violate in judicial his statutory the district We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2 Randall’s statutory mandatory maximum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was 10 years’ imprisonment and there was no statutory mandatory minimum sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2012). 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.
