Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60845/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60845-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jemarious Javae Fair
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60845

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JEMARIOUS JAVAE FAIR,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:13-CR-165

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jemarious Javae Fair appeals the within-guidelines sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argues 

for the first time on appeal that the district court’s “upward variance” from the 

advisory guidelines range was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. 

On plain error review, we affirm. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 

135 (2009); United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 6, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60845 Document: 00513220154 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2015
No. 14-60845

2

Fair argues that the district court committed procedural error when it 

failed to give adequate reasons for its “upward variance.” Fair’s contention 

that the district court imposed a non-guideline sentence, however, is frivolous. 

See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008).1 Fair was 

instead sentenced at the low end of the advisory guidelines range, and a district 

court’s explanation for a sentence imposed within the recommended guidelines 

range can be both brief and legally sufficient. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 

338, 356 (2007); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 362 (5th 

Cir. 2009). Fair’s implicit argument that the district court should not have 

found, for sentencing enhancement purposes, that he committed armed 

robbery is belied by his representation in the PSR “that sufficient evidence 

exists for [the armed robbery] to be shown by a preponderance of the evidence,” 

which is the standard for sentencing. See United States v. Harper, 448 F.3d 

732, 735 (5th Cir. 2006)(judge is empowered to decide facts relevant to 

sentencing guidelines range by a preponderance of the evidence). Our review 

of the record reveals no procedural error, plain or otherwise, in this regard. 

See Rita, 551 U.S. at 356.

Fair also challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, 

arguing that the district court gave improper weight to his criminal history. 

The record reveals, however, that the district court considered the nature and 

circumstances of the offense, Fair’s history and characteristics, and the need 

for the sentence imposed to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), 

(2)(C). Furthermore, “[a] discretionary sentence imposed within a properly 

calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. 

 

1 Fair’s original guidelines range was lower than the one ultimately used. The later 

recalculation and increase came not from a “variance” but from Fair’s conduct in seeking to 

bribe a witness to change his testimony. That conduct resulted in Fair losing the benefit of 

the acceptance of responsibility decrease and gaining obstruction of justice points which 

raised his guidelines range.

 Case: 14-60845 Document: 00513220154 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2015
No. 14-60845

3

Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). Fair therefore has not 

demonstrated clear or obvious error with regard to the substantive 

reasonableness of his sentence. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-60845 Document: 00513220154 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/06/2015