Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamere Ireadus HALL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-11
Citations: 182 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 05-4820
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jamere Ireadus HALL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 182
Pages: 163–164

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jamere Ireadus HALL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-4820.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 3, 2006.
Decided: May 11, 2006.
G. Arthur Robbins, Chesapeake Meridian, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Mythili Raman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jamere Ireadus Hall appeals his 360-month sentence imposed following his jury convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2000) and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Hall disputes the sentencing court's factual finding regarding the drug quantity attributable to him. We find no clear error in the district court's quantity determination because it was adequately supported by Hall's own admissions and by the other evidence presented at trial. See United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir.1999). Hall also asserts the sentencing court erred in declining to award him a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1. We find no clear error in this respect, especially given that Hall proceeded to a jury trial after he absconded from custody for over a year. See United States v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376, 383 (4th Cir.1999). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm Hall'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.