UNPUBLISHED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 Decided: December 17, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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. He appeals, claiming 

that the district court’s refusal to run the sentence 

concurrently to Sessoms’ state sentence renders the sentence 

substantively unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails appellate 

consideration of both the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In assessing 

procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district 

court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing 

Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for 

an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2012) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected 

sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–51. If there are no procedural 

errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of a 

sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Id.

at 51. A sentence is presumptively reasonable if it is within 

the Guidelines range, and this “presumption can only be rebutted 
3

by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured 

against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. 

Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 

421 (2014).

We find (and Sessoms concedes) that his sentence is 

procedurally reasonable. 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. Sester v. United 

States, 132 S. Ct. 229 (2012). In deciding whether to run a 

sentence concurrently or consecutively to another sentence, the 

court must consider the factors in § 3553(a) (2012). 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3584(b). Moreover, the Guidelines express a policy concern 

that the 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 conduct for the instant offense,” it may be 

reasonable for a court to downwardly depart to achieve that 

goal. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3 App. n.3(E)

(2014). 
4

Here, the district court properly recognized its authority 

to run the federal sentence concurrently, consecutively, or 

partially concurrently with the undischarged state 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