Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04509/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04509-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jordan Allen Guy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4509

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JORDAN ALLEN GUY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (7:14-cr-00081-D-1)

Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 29, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, Acting 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4509 Doc: 43 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jordan Allen Guy pled guilty to possession with intent to 

distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1) (2012) (Count 1), possession of a firearm in furtherance 

of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c) (2012) (Count 2), and possession of a firearm by a 

convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2012) 

(Count 3). The district court sentenced him to concurrent 18-

month prison terms on Counts 1 and 3 and a consecutive 60 months 

on Count 2, for a total within-Guidelines sentence of 78 months 

in prison. Guy argues that this sentence is substantively 

unreasonable.

We review for reasonableness a sentence imposed by a 

district court. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). 

“Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated 

Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable,” and this 

“presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence 

is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

[(2012)] factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306

(4th Cir.), 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). We have reviewed the record 

on appeal and Guy’s arguments and conclude that Guy has failed 

to rebut this presumption.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 15-4509 Doc: 43 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-4509 Doc: 43 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3