US v. Jesse Baldwin, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00318-TDS-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999630934]. [14-4651]

Appeal: 14-4651

Doc: 34

Filed: 07/30/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4651

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESSE JAMES BALDWIN, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00318-TDS-2)

Submitted:

June 30, 2015

Decided:

July 30, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY & JOHNSON, LLP, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Joanna
G.
McFadden,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4651

Doc: 34

Filed: 07/30/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Jesse James Baldwin, Jr., pled guilty to conspiracy to pass
counterfeit obligations and passing counterfeit obligations, in
violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§§ 2,

371,

472

(2012).

Baldwin

was

sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay $48,800
in restitution.
unreasonable
adequately

On appeal, Baldwin argues that his sentence was

and

that

supported

reversible error.

the
by

court’s

restitution

evidence.

Our

order

review

was

reveals

not
no

Accordingly, we affirm.
I.

We review a sentence for reasonableness under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007); United States v. Rivera–Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 100
(4th Cir. 2012).

First, we ensure “that the district court

committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to
calculate

(or

improperly

calculating)

the

[Sentencing]

Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to

consider

selecting

a

the

[18

sentence

U.S.C.]
based

on

§ 3553(a)
clearly

[(2012)]

erroneous

failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.”
U.S. at 51.

factors,
facts,

or

Gall, 552

We review a preserved claim of sentencing error for

abuse of discretion and, if error is found, will reverse unless
we conclude that the error was harmless.
592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010).
2

United States v. Lynn,

Appeal: 14-4651

Doc: 34

Filed: 07/30/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

If the sentence is free of “significant procedural error,”
we

review

the

“tak[ing]

substantive
account

totality

into

reasonableness

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
within

or

below

reasonable.

a

the

of

of
the

the

sentence,

circumstances.”

We presume on appeal that any sentence

properly

calculated

Guidelines

range

is

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).

“A defendant can

only rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is
unreasonable
United

when

States

v.

measured
Dowell,

against

771

F.3d

the
162,

§ 3553(a)
176

(4th

factors.”
Cir.

2014)

(alteration omitted).
Baldwin argues that the district court procedurally erred
by

accepting

the

presentence

report’s

calculation

of

his

criminal history points, which assessed Baldwin seven criminal
history points for offenses he committed at age 16.
Baldwin’s

argument,

as

the

U.S.

Sentencing

We reject

Guidelines

Manual

§ 4A1.2(d)(2)(A) (2013) contemplates that juvenile offenses may,
in certain circumstances, be taken into account when calculating
criminal

history

circumstances,
history points.

points.

and

thus

Baldwin’s
were

convictions

appropriately

meet

assessed

these

criminal

Id.

Baldwin also argues that his within-Guidelines sentence was
substantively unreasonable because his sentence was longer than
those of his codefendants.

We have reviewed the record and
3

Appeal: 14-4651

Doc: 34

Filed: 07/30/2015

Pg: 4 of 6

conclude that, though Baldwin’s sentence was longer than the
sentences imposed on his codefendants, Baldwin’s sentence was
reasonable.

He had a higher offense level than one codefendant

and a greater criminal history category than the others.
U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(6).

Additionally,

during

See 18

sentencing,

the

court’s reasoning and reliance on factors found in § 3553(a) was
thorough

and

provide–any

Baldwin
basis

has

for

not

presented–nor

finding

that

his

does

the

record

within-Guidelines

sentence was substantively unreasonable when compared with the
§ 3553(a) factors.
II.
Baldwin

next

argues

that

his

restitution

adequately supported by the evidence.

order

was

not

We “review the district

court’s restitution award for an abuse of discretion.”

United

States v. Catone, 769 F.3d 866, 875 (4th Cir. 2014); see also
United States v. Grant, 715 F.3d 552, 557 (4th Cir. 2013) (“A
district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or
irrationally,
constraining

fails
its

to

consider

exercise

of

judicially

discretion,

recognized

relies

on

factors

erroneous

factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.”).

The

district court issued Baldwin’s restitution order pursuant to
the

Mandatory

Victims

§§ 3663A-3664 (2012).

Restitution

Act

(“MVRA”),

18

U.S.C.

The MVRA requires that a sentencing court

order the defendant to make full restitution to victims of an
4

Appeal: 14-4651

Doc: 34

Filed: 07/30/2015

offense against property.

Pg: 5 of 6

§ 3663A(a), (c)(1)(A)(ii); see also

United States v. Roper, 462 F.3d 336, 338 (4th Cir. 2006).
the

underlying

offense

is

a

criminal

scheme

or

When

conspiracy,

restitution must be paid to “any person directly harmed by the
defendant’s

criminal

conspiracy,

or

conduct

pattern,”

in

the

course

§ 3663A(a)(2);

see

of

the

United

scheme,

States

v.

Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 341 (4th Cir. 2003).
Baldwin argues that his restitution order of $48,800 was
not adequately supported by the evidence.

We disagree.

The

presentence report, which was adopted by the district court,
served as the basis for the $48,800 figure.
may

have

decision
accordance

desired
was

a

more

based

with

the

on

thorough
the

MVRA,

explanation,

adopted

and

Although Baldwin

not

factual

irrational

the

court’s

findings,
or

in

erroneous.

Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing restitution.

Further, as to Baldwin’s

arguments regarding the amount of his restitution order compared
with

his

Baldwin’s

codefendants’,
restitution

we

order,

lack
as

the
the

discretion

MVRA

dictates

to

reduce

that

the

victims must receive full restitution.
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
oral

argument

because

the

facts

5

and

legal

We dispense with
contentions

are

Appeal: 14-4651

Doc: 34

adequately

Filed: 07/30/2015

presented

in

the

Pg: 6 of 6

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

6