United States of America v. Jhamar Oratavio Dawson, a/k/a Smoke, a/k/a Marty

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4357
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JHAMAR ORATAVIO DAWSON, a/k/a Smoke, a/k/a Marty,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 23-4358
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JHAMAR ORATAVIO DAWSON, a/k/a Smoke,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cr-00354-WO-1; 1:23-cr-00030-
WO-1)
Submitted: May 20, 2024 Decided: June 18, 2024

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before AGEE, RICHARDSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Thomas Kieran Maher, AMOS TYNDALL PLLC, Carrboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Jhamar Oratavio Dawson appeals from the district court’s imposition of an above-
Guidelines sentence of sixty months for two counts of being a felon in possession of a
firearm. We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). In so doing, we ensure the district court did not commit any
procedural error, such as selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts or failing to
adequately explain the sentence imposed. Id. at 51. If the district court did not commit a
procedural error, then we assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. United
States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by imposing a procedurally or substantively unreasonable sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm Dawson’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented by the materials before this Court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --