United States of America v. Sammy Lee Mebane, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4977
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SAMMY LEE MEBANE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00301-WO-2)
Submitted: September 16, 2013 Decided: October 29, 2013
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Stephen T. Inman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sammy Lee Mebane, Jr., pleaded guilty to possession of
a firearm after sustaining a prior conviction for an offense
punishable by a term exceeding one year of imprisonment, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court
sentenced Mebane to seventy-eight months of imprisonment, with
twenty-eight months to run concurrently with any sentence Mebane
would receive for pending related state charges. Mebane now
appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
Mebane argues on appeal that the sentence is
substantively unreasonable because the district court did not
impose a sentence entirely concurrent to the un-imposed state
sentence. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330,
335 (4th Cir. 2009). A district court has the discretion to
impose a federal sentence concurrent to, consecutive to, or
partially concurrent to any un-imposed state sentence. See
Sester v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463, 1468-69 (2012). In
deciding whether to run a sentence concurrently or consecutively
to another sentence, the court must consider the factors in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the
relevant legal authorities and conclude that the court’s below-

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Guidelines sentence, imposed partially concurrent with the un-
imposed state sentence, is reasonable. The district court
recognized its authority to sentence Mebane either consecutively
to or concurrently with the un-imposed state sentence,
thoroughly considered and discussed the parties’ arguments and
the § 3553(a) factors, and exhaustively explained the chosen
sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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 in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --