US v. Joe Jefferson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOE LEWIS JEFFERSON, a/k/a Stink, a/k/a Louis Jefferson, a/k/a Joe Little, a/k/a Jo Jo, a/k/a Joseph Wayne Jefferson, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00023-D-1; 5:07-cr-00197-D)
November 23, 2009
December 10, 2009
Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Following his guilty plea to identity fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) (2006), and possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), to 156 a 924 (2006), Joe Lewis on the Jefferson identity was fraud on the
firearm and ammunition count. arguing that the district
Jefferson appeals his sentence, court erred when it imposed a
departure sentence that was too extensive. affirm. Although factual Jefferson of not the claim does not
Finding no error, we
or at was
correctness and in does
provisions, Jefferson does assert that his sentence is "only 24 months less than the maximum" and that it is excessive in light of his guilty plea, acceptance of responsibility, and efforts to cooperate with authorities. analysis of the reasons The district court provided ample it believed Jefferson's departure
sentence was warranted, not only during Jefferson's sentencing hearing, but also in a detailed sentencing memorandum. the extent of effect Jefferson's of his criminal prior 2 more history, lenient the Given
offenses, and the district court's meaningful articulation of the reasons for its departure and the extent of the departure, we find that the extent of Jefferson's departure sentence was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50-51
(2007); United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 (4th Cir. 2007). Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?