US v. James Jackson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00477-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999538704].. [14-4667]

Appeal: 14-4667

Doc: 30

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4667

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES LEE JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00477-JAB-1)

Submitted:

February 11, 2015

Decided:

March 3, 2015

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Terry
M.
Meinecke,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4667

Doc: 30

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
James

Lee

Jackson

pled

guilty

to

interference

with

commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2012).
The district court calculated Jackson’s Guidelines range under
the

U.S.

Sentencing

months’

Guidelines

imprisonment

imprisonment.

On

and

Manual

sentenced

appeal,

Jackson

(2013)
him

at

to

challenges

84

to

94

105

months’

this

sentence.

We affirm.
We review Jackson’s sentence for reasonableness “under
a

deferential

States,

552

abuse-of-discretion
U.S.

38,

41,

51

standard.”

(2007).

Gall

This

v.

review

United
entails

appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.
procedural
court
range,

reasonableness,

properly
gave

calculated

the

parties

we

Id. at 51.
consider

In determining

whether

the

defendant’s

an

opportunity

the

advisory
to

district
Guidelines

argue

for

an

appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.

Id. at 49–51.

“When

must

rendering

a

sentence,

the

district

court

make

an

individualized assessment based on the facts presented,” United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation

marks

and

emphasis

omitted),

and

must

“adequately

explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate
2

Appeal: 14-4667

Doc: 30

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.”
552

U.S.

at

50.

“When

imposing

a

sentence

Gall,

within

the

Guidelines, however, the [district court’s] explanation need not
be

elaborate

themselves

or

are

lengthy

in

many

because

ways

[G]uidelines

tailored

to

the

sentences

individual

and

reflect approximately two decades of close attention to federal
sentencing policy.”

United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267,

271 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
If

the

sentence

is

free

of

“significant

procedural

error,” we review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing]
into account the totality of the circumstances.”
at

51.

If

the

sentence

is

within

or

Gall, 552 U.S.

below

the

properly

calculated Guidelines range, we apply a presumption on appeal
that the sentence is substantively reasonable.

United States v.

Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
421

(2014).

Such

a

presumption

is

rebutted

only

if

the

defendant shows “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”
Jackson

argues

that

his

Id.

sentence

is

procedurally

unreasonable because the district court failed to address his
arguments for an 84-month sentence.
we

conclude

that

this

contention

Upon review of the record,
is

without

merit.

At

sentencing, Jackson advanced his substance abuse history, the
nature of his offense conduct, his acceptance of responsibility,
3

Appeal: 14-4667

Doc: 30

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 4 of 5

the cost of his criminal conduct, and the summary assertions
both that imprisonment was “not the answer” and that an 84-month
sentence

would

serve

the

why

these

factors

explaining
Accordingly,
factors

the

other

contribution
reversible
(“Where

district
than

to

his

of

sentencing

an

84-month

merited

court’s

Jackson’s

failure

behavior

error.

Cf.

or

prosecutor

defendant

here

substance

criminal

procedural

the

objectives

without
sentence.

to

address

abuse

and

its

not

amount

to

does

Carter,

564

F.3d

presents

at

328

nonfrivolous

reasons for imposing a different sentence than that set forth in
the advisory Guidelines, a district judge should address the
party’s

arguments

and

explain

why

he

has

rejected

those

arguments.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Jackson also argues that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the
goals

of

sentencing.

We

reject

this

argument

because

it

essentially asks this court to substitute its judgment for that
of the district court.

While this court may have weighed the

§ 3553(a) factors differently had it imposed sentence in the
first instance, we defer to the district court’s decision that a
94-month

sentence

Jackson’s

case.

See

appellate

courts

“must

court’s

decision

achieved

that

Gall,
give
the

the
552
due

purposes
U.S.

51

deference

§ 3553(a)
4

at

of

sentencing

(explaining
to

factors,

the
on

in
that

district
a

whole,

Appeal: 14-4667

Doc: 30

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 5 of 5

justify” the sentence imposed); United States v. Rivera-Santana,
668 F.3d 95, 105 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating it was within district
court’s

discretion

aggravating

to

factors

accord

in

more

defendant’s

weight

case

and

to

a

host

of

decide

that

the

sentence imposed would serve the § 3553 factors on the whole).
In

light

of

the

“extremely

broad”

discretion

afforded

to

a

district court in determining the weight to be given each of the
§ 3553(a)

factors

in

imposing

sentence,

United

States

v.

Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011), Jackson fails to
overcome the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5