US v. Joe Jefferson

Filing 920091210

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4940

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)

Submitted:

November 23, 2009

Decided:

December 10, 2009

Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.

MICHAEL,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

sentenced conviction

months'

imprisonment 120

and

concurrent

months'

imprisonment

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

dispute court's

the

legal

or at was

correctness and in does

district that

findings court

sentencing unjustified

the

district relevant

departing

under

the

guidelines

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

negligible the

deterrent

sentences,

increasingly

serious

and

extensive

nature

of

Jefferson's

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

would

process. AFFIRMED

3