Court Opinion

ID: 9891942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 21:00:27.436389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:40.202943
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4413      Doc: 32         Filed: 10/18/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4413

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ALEXANDER O’NEAL JACKSON,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cr-00142-HEH-1)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                     Decided: October 18, 2023

        Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Alexander,
        Virginia, Laura J. Koenig, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber,
        United States Attorney, Kenneth R. Simon, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
        OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4413         Doc: 32      Filed: 10/18/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Alexander Jackson appeals from his 78-month sentence for possessing a firearm as

        a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Jackson contends that his sentence is

        procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately explain the

        sentence and failed to address his non-frivolous arguments for a different sentence.

               We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “In determining

        procedural reasonableness, this Court considers whether the district court properly

        calculated the defendant’s advisory guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to

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

        sufficiently explained the selected sentence.” United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740, 744 (4th

        Cir. 2019) (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–51). Having reviewed the record, we conclude the

        district court considered the nonfrivolous arguments Jackson actually advanced in support

        of a different sentence. We are also satisfied with the district court’s explanation of its

        sentencing decision. See United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 174 (4th Cir. 2020).

               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

                                                     2