United States v. Jamal Latimer

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 21, 2022
• Docket: 20-4531
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4531 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/21/2022 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-4531

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMAL DEMARCUS LATIMER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (8:19-cr-00181-DCC-3)

Submitted: June 30, 2022 Decided: July 21, 2022

Before WYNN, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RAY COIT YARBOROUGH, JR., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sloan Price Ellis, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 20-4531 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/21/2022 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Jamal Demarcus Latimer pled guilty to conspiracy to possess multiple controlled

substances with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846.

The district court sentenced Latimer to 210 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Latimer’s

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that

there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Latimer’s sentence is

reasonable. Latimer did not file a pro se supplemental brief, and the Government has

elected not to respond to the Anders brief. 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 consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Id. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court

properly calculated the defendant’s Sentencing 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. Id. at 49-51. If there are no

procedural errors, then we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,

evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. A sentence is presumptively

substantively reasonable if it “is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range,”

and this “presumption can only be rebutted 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. 2014).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 20-4531 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/21/2022 Pg: 3 of 4

Latimer questions whether the district court erred in applying sentencing

enhancements for knowingly misrepresenting or marketing as another substance a mixture

or substance containing fentanyl and for possessing a firearm in connection with a

controlled substance offense. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error

and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Fluker, 891 F.3d 541, 547 (4th Cir.

2018). We conclude that, based on the findings of the presentence report adopted by the

district court, the court did not err in applying a four-level enhancement under U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(13), as Latimer participated in a scheme to

knowingly market as another substance a substance containing fentanyl. We similarly

conclude that the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement under

USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possessing a firearm in connection with a controlled substance

offense. The enhancement is supported by evidence that firearms and drug distribution

paraphernalia were recovered from Latimer’s residence, which was linked to the drug

conspiracy. See USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) & cmt. n.11(A); United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d

621, 629 (4th Cir. 2010). Latimer points to nothing in the record suggesting that the

connection between the firearms and his drug distribution activity was “clearly

improbable.” United States v. Bolton, 858 F.3d 905, 912 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting USSG

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) cmt. n.11(A)).

Further, we discern no other procedural error, as the district court correctly

calculated Latimer’s Guidelines range, afforded the parties an opportunity to address the

court, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and thoroughly explained its reasons for imposing

3 USCA4 Appeal: 20-4531 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/21/2022 Pg: 4 of 4

the sentence. Finally, nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that Latimer’s

below-Guidelines-range sentence is substantively reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the criminal judgment. This

court requires that counsel inform Latimer, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme

Court of the United States for further review. If Latimer requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this

court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy

thereof was served on Latimer.

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