Unpublished

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4273
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
DEMARIS JEROME JENKINS,
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-00038-WO-1)
Submitted:
October 30, 2012
Decided:
January 3, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN,

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael
Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Demaris
Jerome
Jenkins
appeals
from
the
district
courts revocation of his supervised release and imposition of

the statutory maximum twenty-four months in prison.
On appeal,
his attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious
issues for appeal but questioning whether the court failed to
adequately
consider
mitigating
sentencing
circumstances
and
whether the court imposed a sentence greater than necessary to

comply
with
the
statutory
sentencing
factors.
Government nor Jenkins has filed a brief.
Neither
the
We affirm.
We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of

supervised
release
if
it
is
within
the
range and not plainly unreasonable.
prescribed
statutory
United States v. Crudup,
461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).
In determining whether a
sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first consider whether

Id. at 438.
the sentence is unreasonable.

determination,
we
considerations
that
sentences.
Id.
follow
[we
the
use
procedural
in
the]
In making this
and
review
substantive
of
original
In this inquiry, we take[] a more deferential
appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of

discretion
than
reasonableness
review
sentences.
United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th
Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2
for
guidelines
Only if we find
the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable must we

decide whether it is plainly so.
Id. at 657.
plainly
afoul
unreasonable
if
it
runs
of
A sentence is
clearly
settled
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 548 (4th Cir.
law.
2010).
Regarding variances, we may consider the extent of

the deviation [from the recommended Guidelines range], but must
give due deference to the district courts decision that the [18
U.S.C.] 3553(a) [2006] factors, on a whole, justify the extent
of
the
variance.
(2007).
The
Gall
v.
sentencing
United
judge
States,
should
552
set
U.S.
forth
38,
51
enough
to
satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties

arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal
decisionmaking authority.
325,
328
(4th
Cir.
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
2009).
The
Carter
rationale
applies
to
revocation hearings; however, [a] court need not be as detailed

or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as it must be
when imposing a post-conviction sentence.
Thompson, 595 F.3d
at 547 (noting that a district courts reasoning may be clear

from
context
and
the
courts
statements
throughout
the
sentencing hearing may be considered).

Jenkins
argues
first
that
the
sentence
imposed
is
procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to

consider his mitigating circumstances.
3
We conclude that the
record does not support Jenkins assertions.
The court clearly
heard Jenkinss arguments for leniency, but the court rejected

his attempts to minimize his actions by noting the repetitive
nature
of
his
violations,
as
well
as
the
violations occurred soon after his release.
fact
that
the
Moreover, the court
properly considered the nature and circumstances of Jenkinss

underlying
conviction,
conviction,
and
the
lenient
Jenkinss
sentence
given
failure
on
to
that
accept
See United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195,
responsibility.
203-04 (6th Cir. 2011) (noting that district court may consider
leniency of original sentence in determining extent of breach of
trust).
for
Finally, the court gave specific, detailed reasoning
the
upward
Guidelines
variance
range,
Accordingly,
we
and
find
from
the
Jenkins
that
the
twelve-to-eighteen-month
does
not
sentence
is
argue
not
otherwise.
procedurally
unreasonable.
Next,
we
hold
that
the
sentence
was
substantively
reasonable, as it was within the prescribed statutory range and

resulted
from
relevant
3553(a)
U.S.C.
the
3583(e)
district
factors
(2006),
courts
and
the
proper
policy
district
weighing
statements.
may
revoke
of
the
Under
18
term
of
supervised release and sentence a defendant to serve all or part

of
the
weighing
remaining
the
supervised
factors
set
release
forth
4
in
term
in
prison
3553(a)(1),
after
(a)(2)(B),
(a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7).

the
court
offense,
considered
Jenkinss
the
nature
history
and
and
circumstances
characteristics,
Here,
of
the
and
the
necessity of deterring further criminal conduct and protecting

the public.
18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1), (2)(B), (2)(C).
Therefore,
Jenkinss sentence is substantively reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for reversible error and have found none.
affirm Jenkinss revocation and sentence.
As such, we
This court requires
that counsel inform Jenkins in writing of his right to petition

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If
Jenkins requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes

that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may motion
this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsels
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jenkins.

dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
We
legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unpublished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

October 30, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

courts revocation of his supervised release and imposition of

his attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

whether the court imposed a sentence greater than necessary to

Government nor Jenkins has filed a brief.

We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of

range and not plainly unreasonable.

United States v. Crudup,

461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006).

sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first consider whether

the sentence is unreasonable.

In this inquiry, we take[] a more deferential

appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th

Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable must we

United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 548 (4th Cir.

Regarding variances, we may consider the extent of

satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

revocation hearings; however, [a] court need not be as detailed

Thompson, 595 F.3d

at 547 (noting that a district courts reasoning may be clear

sentencing hearing may be considered).

procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to

We conclude that the

record does not support Jenkins assertions.

The court clearly

heard Jenkinss arguments for leniency, but the court rejected

violations occurred soon after his release.

Moreover, the court

properly considered the nature and circumstances of Jenkinss

See United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195,

Finally, the court gave specific, detailed reasoning

reasonable, as it was within the prescribed statutory range and

supervised release and sentence a defendant to serve all or part

(a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7).

necessity of deterring further criminal conduct and protecting

18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1), (2)(B), (2)(C).

Jenkinss sentence is substantively reasonable.

This court requires

that counsel inform Jenkins in writing of his right to petition

Jenkins requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jenkins.

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.