US v. Jeremy Doe
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEREMY ALEXANDER DOE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00072-BO-1)
April 20, 2009
May 11, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Mark Herring, WHITE & ALLEN, P.A., Kinston, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Robert J. Higdon, Jr., Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Jeremy Alexander Doe pled guilty to armed bank robbery (Count 1) and use and carry of a firearm during a crime of violence (Count 2). He was sentenced to 180 months of
imprisonment for Count 1 and a consecutive term of 84 months for Count 2. On appeal, Doe only contests the extent of the
district court's upward departure for his sentence on Count 1. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Doe's advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, as At
calculated in his presentence report, was 57 to 71 months. sentencing, the district court imposed an upward
sentence of 180 months, based on its perception of the violence inherent in Doe's instant bank robbery (where he held a pistol to a bank employee's head), the two bank robberies with which he was charged in Connecticut (where he also held a gun to an employee's head in one instance), and his involvement in the violent assault and branding of a fellow inmate while awaiting his sentencing. According to information discussed at the
sentencing hearing, Doe beat the victim in the face while two other inmates restrained him, acted as a lookout while the other inmates used a heated toothpaste cap to brand circles into the victim's forehead, and then spread baby powder to hide the smell of the burning flesh. Because the branding alerts other
"Bloods" gang members to attack or even kill the victim, the branding targets the victim for further violence. Under these circumstances, we do not find that the district court's sentence was unreasonable. See Gall v. United
States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (stating standard); United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d in 155, 161 (4th Cir.) (applying cert. We
denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008). dispense with oral argument as
Accordingly, we affirm. the arguments are
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
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?