* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51420

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GILBERT JAHMALL

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-1834-1

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gilbert Jahmall appeals the sentences imposed by the United States

District Court for the Western District of Texas following his guilty-plea

convictions of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute fifty kilograms

or more of marijuana; possessing with the intent to distribute fifty kilograms or

more of marijuana; conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute five grams

or more of a mixture or substance containing crack cocaine; and possessing with

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 8, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51420

2

the intent to distribute five grams or more of a mixture or substance containing

crack cocaine. Jahmall argues that when imposing his sentence, the district

court failed to consider his advanced age, his medical problems, and his lack of

dangerousness. Jahmall contends that his sentence is unreasonable in light of

those factors because it is greater than necessary to achieve the goals set forth

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) (2007). 

We review the district court’s sentence for reasonableness. Gall v. United

States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007). Under Gall, we must determine first whether

the district court committed procedural error. 128 S. Ct. at 597. If we find no

procedural error, then we consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness.

Id. Sentences imposed within a properly calculated guideline range are

presumed reasonable. Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007).

Because Jahmall did not object in the district court to the reasonableness of his

sentence, we apply a plain error standard of review, “which requires

considerable deference to the district court.” United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d

389, 391 (5th Cir. 2007). “We may correct the sentencing determination only if

(1) there is error . . . ; (2) it is plain; and (3) it affects [the defendant’s]

substantial rights.” Id. at 392. 

Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, Jahmall’s sentencing

range was seventy-eight to ninety-seven months. The district court sentenced

Jahmall to seventy-eight months, and therefore his sentence is presumed

reasonable. See Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2462. 

We hold that the district court did not commit plain error in imposing

Jahmall’s seventy-eight-month sentence. First, the district court did not commit

procedural error. At sentencing, there was testimony concerning Jahmall’s

background, advanced age, loss of vision, diabetes, medications, and drug

addiction. Before imposing Jahmall’s sentence, the district court expressly

considered “the circumstances of the Defendant, the circumstances of the case
No. 07-51420

3

. . . the advisory Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the factors required to be taken

into consideration by statute[,] and . . . the Presentence Investigation Report.”

Second, Jahmall’s sentence is substantively reasonable. The district court heard

evidence at sentencing that Jahmall was arrested for a drug offense while on

bail for the instant offense. Despite Jahmall’s contrary contentions, his seventyeight-month sentence serves several of § 3553(a)(2)’s objectives, such as

promoting respect for the law, affording adequate deterrence to criminal

conduct, and protecting the public from further crimes of the defendant. See

§ 3553(a)(2). At bottom, the totality of the circumstances in this case,

particularly under a plain error review, do not warrant reversal.

We acknowledge that during the pendency of Jahmall’s appeal, the

Sentencing Commission enacted Amendment 715 to § 2D1.1, revising the

manner in which combined offense levels are determined in cases involving

cocaine base and one or more other controlled substances. U.S. SENTENCING

GUIDELINES MANUAL, app. C (2008). Our holding in the present case does not

preclude future consideration of this issue in a motion to the district court

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2007). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.