US v. Jarvis Sessoms, No. 15-4213 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4213 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JARVIS DEVAIL SESSOMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (2:14-cr-00001-FL-1) Submitted: December 15, 2015 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, December 17, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jarvis Devail Sessoms pled guilty to knowingly possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012). The district court imposed a within-Guidelines 50-month sentence, to be served consecutively to Sessoms’ undischarged state sentence on an unrelated offense. that the district concurrently to court’s Sessoms’ state substantively unreasonable. We review deferential a refusal He appeals, claiming to sentence run renders the sentence the sentence Finding no error, we affirm. sentence for abuse-of-discretion reasonableness, standard.” applying Gall v. “a United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails appellate consideration of procedural reasonableness of procedural court both the sentence. reasonableness, properly the calculated we the Id. at consider and 51. whether defendant’s substantive In assessing the district advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate (2012) sentence, factors, sentence. and considered sufficiently Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–51. the 18 U.S.C. explained the § 3553(a) selected If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” at 51. Id. A sentence is presumptively reasonable if it is within the Guidelines range, and this “presumption can only be rebutted 2 by showing that the sentence is unreasonable against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” when measured United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). We find (and Sessoms procedurally reasonable. concedes) that his sentence is He argues, however, that the sentence as imposed is substantively unreasonable because it should run concurrently with, rather than consecutive to, his undischarged state sentence. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (2012), a district court retains the discretion to run a federal sentence concurrently or consecutively to an unimposed state sentence. States, 132 S. Ct. 229 (2012). Sester v. United In deciding whether to run a sentence concurrently or consecutively to another sentence, the court must consider the factors in § 3553(a) (2012). § 3584(b). that the 18 U.S.C. Moreover, the Guidelines express a policy concern court should determine whether to run a sentence concurrently or consecutively to another sentence to achieve a reasonable sentence and, with “an undischarged term of imprisonment that resulted from conduct only partially within the relevant reasonable goal. for conduct a court for to the instant downwardly offense,” depart to it may achieve be that U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3 App. n.3(E) (2014). 3 Here, the district court properly recognized its authority to run the partially federal sentence concurrently with concurrently, the consecutively, undischarged state or sentence. The court further addressed the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as well as the policy considerations identified in USSG § 5G1.3. Accordingly, we find that Sessoms has failed to overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded his withinGuidelines sentence. 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 4
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.
