United States of America v. Alexander O’neal Jackson

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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 of 2 --