US v. Naeem Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00249-WO-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999665269]. [15-4066, 15-4079]

Appeal: 15-4066

Doc: 38

Filed: 09/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4066

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NAEEM DEONTE JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-4079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEMONTE DENZEL MEADOWS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge.
(1:14-cr-00249-WO-2; 1:14-cr-00249WO-1)

Submitted:

August 27, 2015

Decided:

September 23, 2015

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 15-4066

Doc: 38

Filed: 09/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Craven III, Durham, North Carolina; H.A. Carpenter IV,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellants. Ripley Rand, United
States Attorney, Kyle D. Pousson, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-4066

Doc: 38

Filed: 09/23/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Naeem Deonte Jones and Demonte Denzel Meadows pled guilty
to a Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)
(2012)

(Count

1),

and

brandishing

a

firearm

during

the

commission of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012) (Count 2).

Jones was sentenced to 125

months and Meadows to 121 months of imprisonment.
and

Meadows

whether:

(1)

timely
the

appeal,

district

raising

court

the

erred

Both Jones

following

by

applying

issues,
to

both

Appellants a four-level enhancement for abduction pursuant to
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(B)(4)(A) (2014), and
(2)

the

district

adjudications

court

in

erred

by

calculating

counting
his

Jones’

juvenile

criminal

history.

Alternatively, Jones argues that his criminal history category
III over-represents his criminal history.

For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.
Appellants raise only sentencing issues which we generally
review

for

reasonableness

discretion standard.

under

a

deferential

abuse-of-

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46

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

2012).

Appellants

primarily

rely

on

United

States

v.

Osborne, 514 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2008), for their argument that
their USSG § 2B3.1(B)(4)(A)

enhancement was erroneous.

they

have

argue,

they

should

3

only

received

a

Rather,
two-level

Appeal: 15-4066

Doc: 38

Filed: 09/23/2015

Pg: 4 of 5

enhancement for restraining the victims.

The undisputed facts

reveal that Jones and Meadows forced the victims of their store
robbery through a door and into a backroom at gunpoint and bound
them.
A victim is “abducted” if he is “forced to accompany an
offender to a different location.”

USSG § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(A).

We have held that “movement within the confines of a single
building

can

constitute

movement

to

a

different

location.”

Osborne, 514 F.3d at 389-90 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Even

a

temporary

abduction

can

constitute

an

abduction

for

purposes of the Guidelines.

United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d

1000, 1003 (4th Cir. 1996).

We have adopted a “flexible, case

by case approach to determining when movement to a different
location has occurred.”

Osborne, 514 F.3d at 390. (internal

quotation marks omitted).

We find no reversible error in the

abduction enhancements.
Next, Jones alleges that the district court should not have
counted two cases in which he was “adjudicated delinquent” at
age

15

in

calculating

his

criminal

history

category

as

III.

Jones concedes, however, that we review this issue for plain
error only, as it is raised for the first time on appeal and
that,

even

juvenile

if

the

district

adjudications,

he

court

would

did

still

not
have

count

these

enough

two

criminal

history points to fall within a criminal history category III.
4

Appeal: 15-4066

Doc: 38

Filed: 09/23/2015

Pg: 5 of 5

Thus, even if Jones’ arguments were meritorious, he cannot show
plain error because his criminal history category would remain
the same.

See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32

(1993) (providing plain error test).

Accordingly, this argument

fails.
Alternatively,

Jones

contends

that

his

criminal

history

category over-represents his criminal past in light of the use
of juvenile adjudications and argues against use of the juvenile
conduct

against

Government,

criminal

however,

defendants.

USSG

§

As

4A1.2(d)

argued

by

expressly

the

permits

sentencing courts to consider juvenile adjudications, with some
restrictions

not

applicable

here.

We

have

rejected

a

due

process challenge to § 4A1.2(d) in United States v. Daniels, 929
F.2d 128, 130 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding that defendant cannot
raise due process challenge to use of juvenile adjudications for
offenses

committed

after

effective

date

of

Guidelines).

Accordingly, we find this argument lacks merit.
Thus, we affirm both Jones’ and Meadows’ sentences.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5