US v. Jerrell Broadie, No. 16-4034 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4034 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERRELL MARKES BROADIE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. (3:15-cr-00115-JRS-1) Submitted: September 21, 2016 Decided: December 2, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Elizabeth W. Hanes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerell Markes Broadie appeals the 84-month sentence imposed upon his guilty plea to theft of firearms from a licensed firearms dealer, 18 U.S.C. § 922(u) (2012). federally Broadie claims, first, that the district court improperly assigned a base offense level of 20 under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)(i)(I) (2014), that semiautomatic the offense involved a based upon its weapon findings capable of accepting a large capacity magazine and that Broadie qualified as a “prohibited district court person.” erred in Second, applying Broadie the claims four-level that the enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5) for engaging in firearms trafficking. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuseof-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 527-28 (4th Cir. 2014). We review the sentencing court’s factual findings for clear error. United States v. Flores-Alvarado, 779 F.3d 250, 254 (4th Cir. 2015). With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record before the court and the parties’ briefs and find no clear error and no abuse of discretion by the district court in imposing Broadie’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
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.
