United States v. Jimmy Downey, Jr.
692 F. App'x 742
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jimmy Lee Downey, Jr. pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- The district court sentenced Downey above the advisory Sentencing Guidelines to 51 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the primary question whether the above-Guidelines sentence was reasonable; Downey was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not.
- At sentencing the district court admitted testimony concerning an incident underlying pending state charges against Downey; counsel challenged that evidentiary decision on appeal.
- The Fourth Circuit reviews sentences for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, examining procedural and substantive reasonableness and whether the court relied on clearly erroneous facts.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court properly calculated the Guidelines, did not err in admitting testimony, adequately explained the sentence, and that the upward variance was substantively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of testimony about pending state charges at sentencing | Downey argued the district court erred in allowing that testimony, which affected sentencing | Government argued the court properly considered relevant conduct and appropriately admitted testimony for sentencing purposes | Court held admission was not erroneous; no procedural error in evidentiary ruling |
| Reasonableness of above-Guidelines sentence | Downey argued the 51-month upward variance was unreasonable | Government argued the § 3553(a) factors supported the variance and the court adequately explained its decision | Court held the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (establishes abuse-of-discretion review and guidance for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedures for counsel to file brief when finding appeal frivolous)
- United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212 (4th Cir.) (discusses review of sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155 (4th Cir. 2008) (addresses substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2007) (deference to district court when varying from Guidelines based on § 3553(a) factors)