USCA4 Appeal: 23-4358 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4358 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4358 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 3 of 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